Who is This Man, Omar Al Bashir, That Some Kenyan Government Officials Are So Desperately Defending?

WHO IS THIS MAN, OMAR AL BASHIR, THAT SOME KENYAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE SO DESPERATELY DEFENDING?

Sean Woo, general counsel to Sen. Brownback, or John Scandling, chief of staff to Rep. Wolf, per description on p. 11 of the report - Source 	  http://www.house.gov/wolf/issues/hr/trips/sudanrpt_web.pdf

On November 5th 2009, Kenya’s President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga issued a statement which officially committed themselves and the Government of Kenya to cooperate with the International Criminal Court domestically and internationally.  They categorically stated: the Government remains committed to cooperate with ICC within the framework of the Rome Statute and the International Crimes Act.”

The decision by the Government of Kenya to invite Omar Al Bashir, an International Criminal Court indictee, to attend the Constitution Promulgation ceremony renders the commitments by the two principals doubtful.  To his credit the Prime Minister Raila Odinga has publicly disavowed knowledge of the Omar Al Bashir invitation, but senior members of his Government, and some from his own political party, are shamelessly justifying Omar Al Bashir’s presence at the Promulgation Ceremony for the Constitution of Kenya last Friday.  President Kibaki has not only remained silent, he has left the country for a COMESA meeting in Swaziland.

Some African Heads of State are clearly sympathetic to Al Bashir, and are determined to try and shield him from justice at The Hague.  But truth be told if their citizens knew what kind of person Omar Al Bashir is, and what he has been charged with, their citizens would not back them; just as Kenyan citizens have refused to support Kibaki’s invitation to Omar Al Bashir.

WHY OMAR AL BASHIR IS AN INTERNATIONAL FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE

Put simply, Omar Al Bashir has been charged with a deliberate crime against his own citizens from the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups.

The warrants of arrest for Al Bashir lists Ten Criminal Charges against him on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility under article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute as an indirect (co) perpetrator including:

Five counts of crimes against humanity: murder – article 7(1)(a); extermination – article 7(1)(b); forcible transfer – article 7(1)(d); torture – article 7(1)(f); and rape – article 7(1)(g);

Two counts of war crimes: intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities -article 8(2)(e)(i); and pillaging – article 8(2)(e)(v)

Three counts of genocide: genocide by killing (article 6-a), genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm (article 6-b) and genocide by deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction (article 6-c).

WHAT ARE OMAR AL BASHIR’S SPECIFIC CRIMES?

The International Criminal Court judges considered that there were reasonable grounds to believe that from March 2003 to at least 14 July, 2008, a protracted armed conflict not of an international character existed in Darfur between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and several organised armed groups, in particular the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).  Soon after the April 2003 attack on the El Fasher airport, Omar Al Bashir and other high-ranking Sudanese political and military leaders of the GoS agreed upon a common plan to carry out a counter-insurgency campaign against the SLM/A, the JEM and other armed groups opposing the Government of Sudan in Darfur.

• A core component of that campaign was the unlawful attack on part of the civilian population of Darfur – belonging largely to the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups – who were perceived to be close to the organised armed groups opposing the Government of Sudan in Darfur. The campaign was conducted through Government of Sudan forces, including the Sudanese Armed Forces and its allied Janjaweed militia, the Sudanese Police Forces, the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) and the Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC). It lasted at least until the date of the filing of the Prosecution Application on 14 July, 2008.

• During the campaign, Government of Sudan forces allegedly committed crimes against humanity within the meaning of article 7(1) (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of the Statute and war crimes within the meaning of article 8 (2)(e)(i) and article 8 (2)(e) (v) of the Statute, and in particular:

a. carried out numerous unlawful attacks, followed by systematic acts of pillage, on towns and villages, mainly inhabited by civilians belonging to the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups;

b. subjected thousands of civilians – belonging primarily to the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups – to acts of murder, as well as to acts of extermination;

c. subjected thousands of civilian women – belonging primarily to the said groups – to acts of rape;

d. subjected hundreds of thousands of civilians – belonging primarily to the said groups – to acts of forcible transfer; and,

e. subjected civilians – belonging primarily to the said groups – to acts of torture.

The International Criminal Court judges also found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that:

Omar Al Bashir, as the de jure and de facto President of the State of Sudan and Commander-in-Chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces at all times relevant to the Prosecution Application, played an essential role in coordinating the design and implementation of the common plan;

and, in the alternative, that Omar Al Bashir also:

a.  played a role that went beyond coordinating the implementation of the said Government of Sudan counter – insurgency campaign;

b.  was in full control of all branches of the “apparatus” of the State of Sudan, including the Sudanese Armed Forces and their allied Janjaweed militia, the Sudanese Police Forces, the NISS and the HAC; and,

c.  used such control to secure the implementation of the said Government of Sudan counter-insurgency campaign.

OMAR AL BASHIR WILL NEVER RETURN TO KENYA

Omar Al Bashir is not the kind of man Kenyans wish to celebrate anything with.  Omar Al Bashir needs to face the charges against him in Court and his victims need justice.  This man faces 3 counts of genocide by killing, deliberately inflicting on target groups conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction of thousands of his own citizens.  Al Bashir is also wanted on two counts of war crimes: specifically, intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population and pillaging – i.e. stealing their herds and destroying their farms.  Al Bashir faces 5 counts of crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture, & rape. Al Bashir personally ordered these crimes. In total the two warrants of arrest, issued against Omar Al Bashir, list and detail 10 counts on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility under the Rome Statute – This is a very bad man.

No doubt our Foreign Minister, President and other GOK officials have read the 2nd Arrest Warrant for Omar Al Bashir issued only last July 12th 2010.   Is this the kind of person they are befriending?  Thankfully, Omar Al Bashir fled the country and embarrassed his hosts by behaving like the fugitive he truly is.  His hosts embarrassed themselves further by ordering the Nairobi Police to arrest and beat Kenyans who were peacefully protesting Omar Al Bashir’s presence in their country – this on the day the Constitution came into effect.

We have no doubt that Omar Al Bashir will never dare to return to Kenya.  We also urge fellow Africans who hate impunity to ensure that he finds no safe haven in their countries.  We hail the South African Government for declaring he will be arrested should he try and enter South Africa.

To those few Kenyans who believe that Omar Al Bashir should have been allowed to come to Kenya we urge you to read more about Omar Al Bashir’s crimes: specifically genocide of 3 Sudanese communities here:

Mars Group Kenya

Follow us on

Mars Group twitter

Mars Group facebook

Mars Group Tv Facebook

Icc Judges Grant the Prosecutor’s Request to Launch an Investigation on Crimes Against Humanity with Regard to the Situation in Kenya Covering the Period Between 1st June 2005 and 26th November 2009

ICC judges grant the Prosecutor’s request to launch an investigation on crimes against humanity with regard to the situation in Kenya covering the period between 1st June 2005 and 26th November 2009

Luis Moreno Ocampo

Luis Moreno Ocampo, the ICC chief prosecutor at the Hague.

PRESS RELEASE

On 31 March 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber II, by majority, granted the Prosecutor’s request to commence an investigation on crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the Republic of Kenya.

In the decision, the majority finds that upon examination of the available information, bearing in mind the nature of the proceedings under article 15 of the Statute, the low threshold applicable at this stage, as well as the object and purpose of this decision, the information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed on Kenyan territory. The majority moreover found that all criteria for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction were satisfied, to the standard of proof applicable at this stage.

The majority therefore granted the Prosecutor’s request, and allowed him to commence an investigation covering alleged crimes against humanity committed during the events that took place between 1 June 2005 (i.e., the date of the Statute’s entry into force for the Republic of Kenya) and 26 November 2009 (i.e., the date of the filing of the Prosecutor’s Request).

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Hans-Peter Kaul held that the crimes committed in the Republic of Kenya do not qualify as crimes against humanity under the jurisdictional ambit of the Statute. In particular, Judge Kaul disagreed with the majority on the requirements of a “State or organizational policy” as set out in Article 7(2)(a) of the Statute. Given the fact that the fundamental rationale of crimes against humanity as codified in Article 7 of the Statute was to protect the international community against the extremely grave threat emanating from such policies, Judge Kaul concluded that it had to be adopted either by a State or at the policy-making level of a State-like organization. Upon analysis of the supporting material, Judge Kaul concluded that there was no reasonable basis to believe that the crimes committed on the territory of the Republic of Kenya in relation to the post-election violence of 2007-2008 were committed in an attack against a civilian population pursuant to or in furtherance of a policy stemming from a State or an organization. Hence, Judge Hans-Peter Kaul felt unable to authorize the commencement of an investigation in the Republic of Kenya.

Background information

The Republic of Kenya ratified the Rome Statute on 15 March, 2005 becoming a State Party on 1st June 2005. According to the Rome Statute, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction in situations where the alleged perpetrator is a national of a State Party or where the crime was committed in the territory of a State Party.
On 6 November 2009, the Presidency of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision assigning the situation in the Republic of Kenya to Pre-Trial Chamber II composed of Judges Ekaterina Trendafilova, Hans-Peter Kaul and Cuno Tarfusser. If the Prosecutor intends to commence an investigation proprio motu in the Kenyan situation, he must first obtain authorisation from this Chamber. That is what the Prosecutor sought for on 26 November 2009 filing his request together with 39 appended annexes in approximately 1,500 pages.

Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya

Questions and Answers

The Special Tribunal Bill: Kenyans Experiencing the Bitter Taste of Impunity.

The Special Tribunal Bill: Kenyans Experiencing the Bitter Taste of Impunity.


‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’. Meaning that for Kenyans to fully test something they need to experience it themselves. We have seen Parliament boycott the debating chamber whenever the Special Tribunal Bill came up for debate. Now Kenyans are experiencing the bitter taste of Impunity. The Special Tribunal Bill has received no support from Mwai Kibaki or Raila Odinga, the two principals and signatories of the National Accord. The test here was for the two Principals and they have failed. Parliament has also failed Kenyans and the Victims of the Post Election Violence.

We as Kenyans see no reason whatsoever, for the continuation of this Grand Coalition Government. The Two Principals Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga should be the first victims of the ICC as they bear the greatest responsibility and are the beneficiaries of the Post Election Violence which caused a Constitutional Amendment creating a National Accord that enabled them to share power. If Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga had lived up to their end of the bargain with Kenyans, the government would have supported the Special tribunal Bill that would have seen Justice for the Victims of Post Election Violence.

Kofi Annan is back in town. What will the Principals be telling the eminent persons on the Special Tribunal for Kenya? Will Mr Annan say that there has been progress? We look forward to Mr Ocampo picking up Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga and sending them to the Hague. Lets not be Vague! Or at least that should be the position if the two principals by Wednesday next week have not whipped their party members into attending the division when the Special Tribunal Bill comes up for a vote.

Partnership for Change

Nairobi, Kenya

2nd December 2009


Extracts of Powerful Contributions by Members of Parliament on Wednesday 11th November 2009, when Mr. Gitobu Imanyara Mp Rose to Move That the Special Tribunal Bill Be Read a Second Time. the Bill Was Seconded by Mr. Danson Mungatana Mp.

Extracts of Powerful Contributions By Members Of Parliament on Wednesday 11th November 2009, when Mr. Gitobu Imanyara MP rose to move that the Special Tribunal Bill be read a Second time. The Bill was seconded by Mr. Danson Mungatana MP.

On the morning of Wednesday, 11th November, 2009 Hon. Gitobu Imanyara MP rose to move that the Constitution Of Kenya ( Amendment ) Bill be read a second time. Sadly, the debate on this crucial bill that seeks to set up a Special Tribunal to punish the perpetrators of Post Election Violence was adjourned due to lack of Quorum. Ministers and Assistant ministers had jetted off to Mombasa for a retreat that was yet to begin as the two Principals Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga were photographed at Nairobi’s Jomo Kenyatta Airport on Friday receiving the FIFA World Cup. It is clear to the Citizens of this Republic that our representatives FAILED intentionally, to show up at Parliament to debate a matter of National Importance. Can the people of this great country honestly claim to have representation?

We, Citizens of Kenya have presented a Public Petition to Parliament, through Hon. David Ngugi MP in support of Hon. Imanyara’s Bill for a Special Tribunal that seeks justice for our Brothers and Sisters and their children who are victims of the Post Election Violence. We want our so called representatives to be clear that they are in Parliament because they are elected by Kenyan Citizens. It is Kenyan Citizens who are saying that they want a Special Tribunal that meets International thresholds under the ICC. The vox populi cannot be ignored in a Democracy. The Kenyan People have spoken, and now we want our voice to be loud and clear in the National Assembly.

Members of Parliament must enact into Law, the Constitution Of Kenya ( Amendment ) Bill 2009. Kenyans are watching. We also urge the International Community to stand with the Public on calling for Parliament to immediately enact this crucial Bill into Law. Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga must rally their troops to support the enactment of the Bill into Law as promised to Kenyans when they received the Waki report in October of 2008 “ With Power comes responsibility” Kenyans expect the Principals to honour their promises.

Below is an extract of the Proceedings in Parliament on the Special Tribunal Bill on Wednesday 11th November 2009.


Hon Gitobu Imanyara MP, moves that the Bill be read a Second time

Mr. Imanyara: I beg to move that the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill be read a Second Time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand before you with great humility and profound gratitude to move the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, 2009. If enacted, as I plead with you, we will amend the Constitution of Kenya to create a Special Tribunal for Kenya to investigate, prosecute and determine cases against persons responsible for genocide, gross violation of human rights and crimes against humanity.

The Tribunal will also investigate prior and subsequent events, circumstances and factors relating to offences arising from and connected with the December, 2007 General Election.

Historic Agreement
On 16th December, 2008, His Excellency the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forced, Mwai Kibaki together with the Rt. hon. Raila Amolo Odinga signed a historic agreement which was in the following language. It reads:-
“Agreement for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Post Election Violence. Recalling the agreements on the principles of partnership of the Coalition Government made on 28th February, 2008, and the agreement for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry on Post Election Violence dated 4th March, 2008 convinced that the fundamental reforms must be instituted to create a better, more secure, more prosperous Kenya for all, desirous to establish a framework for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission into Post Election Violence as contained in the report dated 16th October, 2008, the CIPEV Report and pursuant to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act as entrenched in the Constitution of Kenya, now the parties hereby – the parties were the President and the hon. Prime Minister – agree as follows—

Article One- Parties shall submit a bill
“ Article One on the establishment of a special tribunal for Kenya says that “the parties shall prepare and submit to the National Assembly for enactment a Bill to be known as “The Statute for the Special Tribunal” to give effect to the establishment of a Special Tribunal to seek accountability against persons bearing the greatest responsibility for crimes, particularly crimes against humanity relating to the 2007 General Election in Kenya. The Bill shall provide for the matters recommended by the CIPEV Report in relation to a Special Tribunal for Kenya”.

Article two- Parties shall mobilise Parliamentary support
Article Two says that “the parties shall mobilise Parliamentary support for the enactment of Freedom of Information Bill, 2008 and take such administrative measures as they may be necessary to fully operationalise the Witness Protection Act, 2008 and the International Crimes Act, 2008.

Article three- Parties shall initiate urgent reforms
Article Three which talks about comprehensive reforms in the Kenya Police and the Administrative Police says that the parties shall initiate urgent and comprehensive reforms of the Kenya Police and the Administrative Police. Such reforms shall be undertaken by the panel of policing experts and will include, but not limited, to a review of all tactics, weapons and use of force, establishment of an independent Police Service Commission to oversee both the Kenya Police and the Administrative Police, an Independent Police Conduct Authority for both the Kenya Police and the Administration Police, creation of a modern Code of Conduct for the Kenya Police and the Administrative Police and achieving ethnic and tribal balance in the force”.

Article four- Parties shall suspend and bar from office public servants
Article Four on public officers and offices says that “the parties shall ensure that any person holding public office or any public servants charged with a criminal offence related to the 2008 post election violence shall be suspended from duty until the matter is fully adjudicated upon. The parties shall ensure that any person convicted of a post election violence offence is barred from holding any public office or contesting any electoral position”.

Article Five- Parties shall develop & implement conflicts & disaster early warning response systems
Article Five on Conflict and Disaster Early Warning and Response System says that “the parties shall ensure that the conflicts and disaster early warning and response systems as articulated in the First Medium Term Plan, 2008/2012 and are developed and implemented as a matter of priority.

Article Six- Parties hereby designate a Cabinet sub Committee of National Accord
Article Six on Framework for implementation states that “the parties hereby designate a Cabinet sub-Committee of National Accord comprising of His Excellency the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki; the Rt. hon. Raila Odinga who is the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kenya and the eight Ministers who represent the parties at the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation as the bodies to oversee the day to day management and implementation of the agreements.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is our contribution as Members of the Tenth
Parliament to the realisation of the objectives that were set out by His Excellency the President, the Rt. hon. Prime Minister and the eight man and women team that was charged with that responsibility. I need not to remind hon. Members that this Accord was entrenched in our national Constitution, therefore, creating a very solemn obligation on the part of the parties and on us, as Members of Parliament. The eight Ministers who represent the parties in the agreement are:-

(i) Hon. Moses Wetangula;
(ii) Hon. Mutula Kilonzo, MP;
(iii) Hon. Prof. Sam Ongeri, MP;
(iv) Hon. Martha Karua, MP, now replaced by Hon. Beth Mugo, MP;
(v) Hon. Musalia Mudavadi, MP;
(vi) Hon. James Orengo, MP;
(vii) Hon. William Ruto, MP; and,
(viii) Hon. Sally Kosgei, MP.

Kenya Ratified the Rome Statute
The journey to this stage began with the unanimous decision of the then NARC Government through the then Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs to ratify the Rome Statue that set up the International Criminal Court in Rome. This country proudly, ratified the Rome Statute on 15th March, 2005 and, therefore, joined the international efforts to end the culture of impunity. This country recognises the exhaustive provisions in that statute to deal with impunity. In too many cases across the world, these crimes had been committed with impunity which had only encouraged others to flout the laws of humanity.

The International Criminal Court was created due to that urgent need to end impunity and stop gross violation of the International Humanitarian Law.
On 17th July, 1998, the international community reached a historic milestone when 120 states adopted the Rome Statute forming the legal basis for establishing the permanent International Criminal Court. The states were mindful that millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that have deeply shocked the conscience of humanity. The states were affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to international community must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international co-operation.

Article 27 which stipulates that the statute shall apply equally
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, among the provisions of the Rome Statute that we ratified is Article 27 which stipulates that the statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinctions based on official capacity. Article 29 provides that the crimes within the jurisdiction of the court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations. The ratification was followed by the next major step of domesticating the Rome Statute when this House approved the Government’s efforts of domesticating it by passing the International Crimes Bill into an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, our efforts towards the establishment of a truly democratic environment under which the rule of law and respect for human rights were dealt a near fatal blow by the events surrounding the declaration of the result of the Presidential Elections of December, 2007 General Elections. I need not repeat the tragic circumstances that saw more than 1,000 Kenyans slaughtered in an unprecedented orgy of ethnic mayhem and also left more than 500,000 of fellow Kenyans living as refugees or Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) within our borders.

The tensions, suspicions, prejudices and fears provoked by those events, unfortunately, remain with us today. Against the above background, the international community did not disappoint. At the moment, we must pay tribute to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki Moon, the then President of Ghana, His Excellency John Kufuor, His Excellency the former President of Tanzania, Mr. Benjamin Mkapa, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Kofi Annan and Her Excellency, Madam Graca Machel. It is through the efforts of the UN and the international community that the National Accord and Reconciliation Committee was formed after the disputed elections held in December, 2007. The Committee held its deliberations under the auspices of the panel of eminent African personalities and through them, the National Accord was born and signed into law on 28th February, 2008, and also enacted in the Constitution to ensure that its noble intentions were not manipulated or subverted.

National Accord signed by Mwai Kibaki & Raila Odinga established a Commission of Inquiry into the Post- Election Violence
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the National Accord signed by President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, the Commission of Inquiry into the Post-Election Violence (CIPEV) was established vide gazette notice No.4473 on 22nd May, 2008. Its mandate was to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the violence; the conduct of state security agencies in their handling of it and to make recommendations concerning this and other matters. Under the chairmanship of Justice Phillip Waki, Judge of the Kenya Court of Appeal, the CIPEV carried out its mandate and completed its task within a reasonable time and in accordance with its provisions, made fundamental recommendations among them:-

Special Tribunal for Kenya be set up as a court that will sit within the territorial boundaries of the Republic of Kenya
“(a) A special tribunal to be known as Special Tribunal for Kenya be set up as a court that will sit within the territorial boundaries of the Republic of Kenya and seek accountability against persons bearing the greatest responsibility for crimes, particularly crimes against humanity relating to the 2007 General Elections in Kenya. The special tribunal shall achieve this through the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of such crimes.

Tribunal shall apply Kenyan and International Law
(b) The special tribunal shall apply Kenyan law and also the International Crimes Bill once this is enacted, and shall have Kenyan and international judges as well as Kenyan and international staff to be appointed as provided there under.

Special Tribunal shall be enacted into law and come into force within a further 45 days after the signing of the agreement
(c) In order to fully give effect to establishment of the special tribunal, an agreement for its establishment shall be signed by the representatives of the parties in the agreement of National Accord and Reconciliation within 60 days of the presentation of the report of the CIPEV to the panel of eminent African personalities or the panel representatives. A statute to be known as a Statute for Special Tribunal shall be enacted into law and come into force within a further 45 days after the signing of the agreement.

ICC can investigate and prosecute suspected persons if Tribunal fails
(d) If either an agreement for the establishment of a special tribunal is not signed or the statute for the special tribunal fails to be enacted or the special tribunal fails to commence functioning as contemplated above or having commenced operating its purposes are subverted, a list containing names and relevant information on those suspected to bear the greatest responsibility for crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the proposed special tribunal shall be forwarded to the special prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The special prosecutor shall be requested to analyze the seriousness of information received with a view to proceeding with an investigation and prosecuting such suspected persons.

Anchored in the Constitution
(e) The Bill establishing a special tribunal shall ensure that the special tribunal is insulated against objections on constitutionality and to that end it shall be anchored in the Constitution.”

Attempt to create A special Tribunal failed the First time it was introduced
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the above recommendations, among others contained in the Waki Report, led to the introduction before this House of the first attempt to create a special tribunal for Kenya. The attempt failed when this House rejected it for reasons among others, are:-

(i) It did not meet constitutional safeguards on the criteria and conditions set by the Waki Report.

(ii) As drafted, it could not win the confidence of victims because of lack of credible,

(iii) impartial, independent investigations and prosecution procedures

(iv) It did not guarantee standards of trials set out in the Rome Statute.

(v) It did not have financial and political independence.

(vi) Provisions on witness and victim protections were inadequate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, despite advice in a Speaker’s Kamukunji that we held in the Old Chambers attended by both the President and the Prime Minister, the efforts of the then Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs, failed to yield.

resignation of the Minister from the Government
Subsequent events led to the resignation of the Minister from the Government and she was succeeded by Mr. M. Kilonzo, whose efforts also failed when his colleagues in the Cabinet rejected a much improved version of the original Bill.

It was at that stage that the civil society, led by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and supported by others including the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), International Centre for Policy and Conflict (ICPC), FIDA Kenya and a number of us in the backbench met, fine-tuned and improved on the earlier Bill rejected by the Cabinet and in a departure from the traditions of this august House, published it in a draft form in a website called “endimpunityinkenya.org” seeking views from Kenyans within and without. Within days, the website recorded more than 50,000 hits and close to 5,000 comments and suggestions for improvement. The result is the Bill that I am introducing to this House today.

Kenyans determined to end the culture of impunity
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I at this point remind hon. Members that what is before this House is, therefore, the product of all the above. It is not a sole effort of myself, Mr. Imanyara, but a combined effort of Kenyans determined to end the culture of impunity in our beloved Republic.

Why the Bill? In line with Recommendation No.6 of the Waki Report, the Bill proposes the following constitutional amendment. The Constitution of Kenya shall be amended by inserting the following new Section immediately after Section 3A which reads:- “There is to be established a tribunal to be known as a Special Tribunal for Kenya which shall have exclusive jurisdiction in accordance with this Constitution;

(a) to investigate, prosecute and determine cases against persons responsible for genocide, gross violation of human rights, crimes against humanity; and,

(b) investigate prior and subsequent events, circumstances and factors relating to the crimes and to prosecute related offenses arising from and connected with crimes committed in Kenya in connection with December, 2007 elections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 3A (vi) says that:- this Section shall cease to be effective upon expiry of three years from the dates of the establishment of the tribunal, provided that Parliament may extend the life of the tribunal which may be extended in appropriate circumstances and at the request of the tribunal by the resolution of the National Assembly, supported by not less than 65 per cent of all Members of the National Assembly excluding the ex-officio Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in line with Recommendation No.5 of the Waki Report,the Bill proposes in Clause 3A (ii) as follows:- “Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, the ICC established under the Rome Statute shall have concurrent jurisdiction to investigate, indict and prosecute persons bearing the greatest responsibility. The Tribunal, may, at any stage make a referral to the ICC as set out in Article 14 of the Rome Statute with reasons thereof if it deems expedience provided that no person shall be subjected to prosecution by both the ICC and the Special Tribunal at the same time.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in line with recommendation number 2 of the Waki Report and in recognition that this country has fully operationalised the International Crimes Act, 2008 and in recognition of the Vienna Convention Section 11(3)(i) and (ii) of the Bill are coached in the following words:- “(3)(i) This section shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity and shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility nor shall it in and of itself constitute a ground for reduction of sentence;

(ii) Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person whether under national or international law shall not bar the Tribunal from exercising jurisdiction over such a person with respect to Vienna Convention.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in line with Article 28 of the Rome Statute which ratifies this, the Bill proposes as follows in Section 11(4):- “The fact that any other acts under the interpretation section herein above was committed by a subordinate does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if the superior knew or had reason to know, or to have ought to have known, or owing to the circumstance at the time, should have known, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or has done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to submit the matter to the Competent Authorities for investigation and prosecution.”

Section 11(5) says: “The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a Government official or of a superior shall not relieve him or her of criminal responsibility.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, contrary to assertions from some quarters, the Bill does not target any one personality, institution or community. It targets the perpetrators of impunity wherever they are from whatever community or racial group in Kenya.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Section 11(1) of the Bill is coached as follows:- “A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime shall be responsible individually for the crime”.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in line with recommendation number one of the Waki Report, the Bill has given the Tribunal wide powers to look at events that not only took place after the disputed Presidential results were announced, but also that preceded the general election.

Section 4(1) of the Bill gives the Tribunal the following functions:- “The functions of the Tribunal shall be to investigate, prosecute and determine cases against persons bearing responsibility for genocide, gross violations of human rights, crimes against humanity and other crimes which occurred in relation to the General Elections held on 27th December, 2007.”

Section 4(2) says:-“The Tribunal shall have power to investigate prior and subsequent events, circumstances and factors relating to the crimes and to prosecute related offences arising from and connected with the crimes.”

Therefore, those who fear that and I quote their words “stole elections will be scot-free” will not go scot free because the Tribunal does have powers to make investigations on all aspects. The Tribunal shall determine who to pay compensation for the identified victims after assessment has been undertaken by special magistrates.

Lastly, the effects of investigation, indictments and convictions on holders of public office are stipulated in Clause 55(1) of the Bill. It reads as follows:- “A public officer under investigation shall stand relieved of duties until exonerated.”

Section 55(2) says:- “A public officer who is indicted or convicted of a crime under this statute shall cease to hold public office.”

The Bill before this House today does not aim to replace the criminal processes or work of the Kenyan judiciary. It is not imposed upon us from outside, but as I have explained, it does recognise the efforts of international community as entrenched in the Constitution through the Panel of Eminent African Personalities.

The Bill has four parts.
Part one contains preliminaries,

part 2 providing for the operations and structure of the Special Tribunal for Kenya as a body corporate; it sets out the procedure for the appointment of judges of the Tribunal, Prosecutor, Registrar, Defence Counsel, Special Magistrates and it also specifies the crimes to be prosecuted.

Part three contains financial provisions in respect of the Tribunal and provides for the sources from which funds of the Tribunal will be drawn.

Part 4, contains miscellaneous provisions, including requirements that the Tribunal do prepare and submit a report on its work to the National Assembly.

The Bill gives the two principals signatories to ensure the proper functioning of the Special Tribunal
The Bill gives the two principals signatories, His Excellency the President and Right Hon. Prime Minister extra-ordinary authority to ensure the proper functioning of the Special Tribunal. That is why the Constitution itself, through the Bill that we entrenched, gave special responsibility to the eight Cabinet Ministers who have been charged with that solemn responsibility of ensuring, not only that the special Tribunal is formed, but it functions smoothly and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Waki Report.

All we are doing this morning is supporting those efforts. It is a pity that 90 per cent of those who are charged with that responsibility are not here to understand and hear that we are doing what is expected of them. We are only supporting their efforts. This solemn obligation they took when they signed the agreement setting out the principles. If you look at those principles as I have read, you will see that we are lagging far behind the reform agenda. That is why we, as a Parliament, are called upon to take responsibility of leadership to ensure that this country never again has to undergo through what we went in December, 1997 and early January, 1998.

Tribunal uses the best of international practice and international legal know-how
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I want to emphasize that the Special Tribunal Bill that we seek to establish is a truly Kenyan Tribunal. It uses the best of international practice and international legal know-how as recommended by the Panel of Eminent African Personalities. It is created by the will of the Kenya people and a creature of this House and none other. The Special Tribunal is not answerable to the United Nations (UN), Koffi Annan or any foreign envoy. The Bill clearly differentiates between culprits and minor collaborators. The chief perpetrators go to The Hague. Their names are contained in an envelope. The other violators will be dealt with here in accordance with the law without distinction as to their community, status in life and official capacity.

It does not victimise any group of any class. It serves the victims while dealing with new ones and differentiations with the culprits. The Special Tribunal we are creating does not depend on the International Criminal Court (ICC), but will collaborate with it.

passing this Bill will strengthen our sovereignty
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, passing this Bill will strengthen our sovereignty and show critics and detractors that we are not a failed state, but a state that is able, ready and willing to regulate her own affairs. I urge the hon. Members to enact this Bill into law. In the words of Winston Churchill, we are still toiling up the hill. We have not yet reached the crest line of it. We cannot survey the landscape or even imagine what condition will be when that longed for morning comes. The task which lies before us immediately is one that is practical, simpler and has higher standards more stands. I hope and, indeed, pray that we shall not be found unworthy of our victory if after toil and tribulations of it, it is granted to us. For the rest, we have to gain the victory. That is our task.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill and request hon. Mr. Mungatana to second it.

Mr Danson Mungatana MP rises to Second the Bill

Mr. Mungatana:
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to congratulate hon. Gitobu
Imanyara for moving this Bill. I also want to thank him so much for taking time to move The Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill, which essentially seeks to introduce the Special Tribunal in Kenya.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon. Imanyara has gone into details about what the technical bits of the law that are necessary for us to get the Special Tribunal for Kenya and he has gone into the details of the kind of things and the standards that we need to set. However, I want to bring this debate to another level. Crimes were committed in this country after the general election of 2007. There were crimes of murder, rape, robbery with violence, those that involved injuries to people, burning of homes and things like that. However, there are what we call ordinary crimes and crimes that threaten the very existence of a state. The kind of crimes that were being committed at that time were threatening the existence of the state that we know as Kenya

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we have a crime that is committed and threatens the existence of a State and also brings the fear of disintegration of a whole nation, such a crime cannot be treated as an ordinary crime. There have been arguments that the Attorney-General of the Republic of Kenya could have arrested all those people and tried them under the current existing laws. He could have taken all the people who were involved in whatever forms of little crimes that were committed at the time, have them arrested and then charge them in court under the existing laws. People have argued before saying that because the Attorney-General did not do that, it is a failure on his part. I stand here as the devil’s advocate. The kind of crimes that were being committed at that time were threatening the existence of the state that we know as Kenya. They were not ordinary crimes that were committed in this country. Those were crimes that were threatening the very fabric of the state that we know as Kenya. Therefore, it is not the failure as such of the Attorney-General. It was the failure of the law that existed at that time that would not be able to address the issues that were in existence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is why, right now, we need to pass this statute of the Special Tribunal that will deal with those kind of crimes that were threatening the existence of the nation. These were not ordinary crimes. This is the reason why this Parliament should be persuaded to pass the law that hon. Imanyara has just moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the existence of this kind of situation is not new. It has been existing in other parts of the world and there are many examples that people can look at. However, what comes to my mind, and every hon. Member can quickly access it if they go to the Cable News Network (CNN) blog, is that they will see what happened in Cambodia;. 1.7 million people were killed in Cambodia in three months because of the uprising of the Khmer Rouge. Many of us would remember hearing about the Khmer Rouge again and again. It was not possible in Cambodia to deal with those murders, rapes, killings and burning of properties that took place using the normal laws that existed at that time. It was necessary to set up a special law that would deal with that situation.

set up this Special Tribunal so that we can deal with a situation that existed and could not be handled with the current laws that exist in this country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, so in seconding this Bill, I am urging Members of Parliament to bring to bear the fact that there is need for us right now to set up this Special Tribunal so that we can deal with a situation that existed and could not be handled with the current laws that exist in this country. Legally and politically speaking, the laws that were in existence at this time and the laws that are in existence at that time are not capable of dealing with the situation that we have. Therefore, this is one fundamental reason why I am urging hon. Members in this House and those who are listening to us even outside this House, that there is need for us to come together as a nation and support the aspirations of many Kenyans and set up this Special Tribunal.

Kenyans were injured. People lost their lives. Children were butchered. Women were raped. Young men were killed at the prime of their youth
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this brings me to the second point why we need to set up this Special Tribunal. A lot of Kenyans out there were injured and suffered crimes. People lost their lives. Children were butchered. Women were raped. Young men were killed at the prime of their youth. A lot of people show the clips that were there during the post-election violence. Those are images we cannot forget. These Kenyans who were victims are listening to us today and looking up to the leadership of the country to do something about the problems of victimization they encountered at that period. It is a time in history for this Parliament to rise to the occasion and listen to the cries of the people in the countryside and those in towns who suffered the brunt of the election violence.

Kenyans who brought us to this Parliament need to see leadership in us
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, even reading what was recommended by the Justice Waki and Kriegler Commissions, our people suffered and need a closure to that sad chapter of history. I know that we need to forgive and this is what the good book tells us and we will forgive. That opportunity will come under the Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) but under this law, we want people to be held responsible so that Kenyans who brought us to this Parliament would be able to see leadership in us. Leadership is not about being popular; leadership is about walking and charting places which may not necessarily have been charted before. Sometimes it is dangerous, unpopular and difficult. That is why I am saying we need to congratulate hon. Imanyara for this bold step he has taken.

meet the aspirations of the people of Kenya
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Kenyans today would like to see a situation where those people that wronged them can face justice in this country. They know them. Some of them were their neighbours and are still walking around in their neighbourhoods. Some of them are laughing at them. It is important for us as a nation to meet the aspirations of the people of Kenya who want to see a closure to this sad chapter in our history, which is the second reason why we need to pass this Bill and offer leadership to the people of Kenya.

victims of post-election violence who would wish to give their evidence have a special arrangement under this law
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the third reason I am seconding this Bill, and I think we
should all support it, is that the victims of post-election violence who would wish to give their evidence have a special arrangement under this law. People will not be living in fear again in the countryside. They will be able to come out to give their bit. When the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission commences work, it will find people who have already started the process of healing.

Victims will be compensated
This Bill also provides clearly that the victims of post-election violence will be
compensated. In the whole debate about the post-election violence, the country has been concerned about those who need to be protected. They have forgotten about the victims of the violence. When we have national disasters in the country, say, as a result of bad weather, the nation always wakes up to the occasion. For example, Ministries come together to help people resettle. However, the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) have been forgotten. Those who had farms were given only Kshs35,000. There are those who were employed but are not jobless and they cannot go back where they used to work.

They have lost their livelihood! These people need to be compensated. So, in this Bill, the victims of post-election violence have been clearly provided for. The Bill seeks to set up a fund. This will enable the victims of the violence say: “Indeed, our country did not forget us”

if these victims should be forgotten, then that is another failure.
If we say that the problem that arose was collective because of the failure of the
electoral system at that time, then it was a failure of the State. We failed collectively. However, if we also say that these victims should be forgotten, then that is another failure. In this Bill, it is proposed that a fund be set up. The State will try to reach out to the victims of post-election violence and compensate them. That way, the nation will start a true healing process.

this particular Bill, people are being treated equally.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon. Imanyara touched on the reasons that made us reject the initial Bill. The most crucial thing is to realize that in this particular Bill, people are being treated equally. According to this Bill, in all circumstances, there is no regard to the position you hold. You could be the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or Police Commissioner, but this Bill is not restrictive. It seeks to deal with and bring equality to everybody. It is for that reason, again, that I urge my colleagues to support it.

Kenya has suffered impunity right from Independence
Kenya has suffered impunity right from Independence. Impunity has been there since the regime of the late first President, the second President and even now. The notion in this State is that when you are a big person, you cannot commit any wrong and that you need to be protected at all costs. This Bill seeks to correct that. For the first time in this country, we will see people being taken to trial. Impunity needs to be dealt with in this country and we must begin from somewhere. I was very happy when the other day I read in the newspapers that the former President of France, Mr. Jacque Chirac was being questioned and warrants had been issued that he appears in court to answer to charges of improper use of resources when he was the mayor of Paris. You can imagine the levels where justice has reached in that country – a former Head of State can be called to account!

In the same country, the current President, Mr. Sarkozy, has gone to court to fight for his rights. Apparently, when he was running for the presidency, the former Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin was involved in some schemes to ensure that Mr. Sarkozy does not succeed. In Kenya, we call it “kupakana matope”. That is the level we need to take our country. I know of democracies that have been in existence for many years. For example, we all know about the French Revolution of 1779.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, here, we are talking about impunity and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. In Kenya, you hardly ever hear of a Government Minister being taken to court to answer to this-and-that charge. That is why, today, even on small matters like traffic jams, you will see a flagged car `flying’ on the wrong side of the road. They do not care that they could cause an accident and kill someone. They just ‘fly’. They do not know that we are the ones paying for the flagged vehicle, whether it is a Passat or the big guzzlers. The sense of impunity exists in this country and it is what we need to deal with. It is impunity which tells you: “Because my father is So-and-So, you cannot touch me. Because my grandfather is So-and-So, I need to get this tender. I can shoot you and nothing will happen to me. I can plan violence and nothing will happen to me so long as I fight so hard to catch that flag. Once it is on my car, nothing will happen to me”. We need to take our country to the level of France. Everybody must be ready to pay the price so that the State can move forward. This is a big reason we need to support this Bill. It is seeking to deal with that impunity. In this Bill, nobody is big or immune. If you have been mentioned, whether you are a Government officer or not, you are required to come out of that office so that you can be dealt with in a normal way. We have to respect the flag and that is why we have to remove you from office so that you can be dealt with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for those reasons, I second this Bill and urge hon. Members to show leadership and go for it. Let us close this chapter of our nation. I beg to second.

(Question proposed)

The Assistant Minister for Roads (Dr. Machage): Bw. Naibu wa Spika, huu
ndio wakati wananchi wa nchi hii wanapaswa kuwatambua viongozi wazalendo ambao wana uchungu na utu; viongozi ambao wanamtambua kila mtu kwenye sehemu ya uwakilishi Bungeni kama binadamu, na kujua kwamba binadamu wote ni sawa.

Kwa wale, wale ambao wanapenda kusoma Biblia, wanajua kwamba wakati fulani, Mwenyezi Mungu alimuumba binadamu na binadamu akawazaa watoto wawili; Abel na Kain. Baadaye, Kain aliamua kumuua Abel. Mwenyezi Mungu akamuuliza Kain: “Ndugu yako yuko wapi?” Kain akamujibu: “Sijui.” Mwenyezi Mungu akamuuliza: “Unasema hujui na damu ya ndugu yako inalia mbele ya macho yangu?”

Bw. Naibu wa Spika, damu ya wananchi zaidi ya 1,000 waliofariki wakati wa
ghasia za baada ya uchaguzi mkuu wa 2007 inalia mbele ya macho ya Mwenyezi Mungu. Mwenyezi Mungu amemweka hapa mwawakilishe watu wake ili mweze kusikia vilio kama hivyo lakini wengine wetu tunakipuuza kilio hicho. Mimi niliupinga Mswada wa kwanza ulioletwa Bungeni. Mhe. Imanyara, na viongozi wengine wengi, pia waliupinga Mswada huo kwa sababu ulikuwa umetayarishwa na hila. Mswada huo ulikuwa umeandikwa kuwatetea wauaji na wavunjaji sheria. Mimi na Waziri Msaidizi mwingine mmoja tu ndio tulioukataa Mswada huo miongoni mwa wale tuliomo Serikalini.

Tulilazimishwa na Serikali kuunga mkono Mswada huo lakini tulikataa. Tulisema kwamba haiwezekani kwa sababu Mswada huo haukufaa. Nikauliza: “Kwa nini Mswada huu hauna vipengele ambavyo vinamruhusu kila mtu kulingana na mwingine kisheria?”

Lakini hakuna aliyetaka kulijibu swali hilo, isipokuwa tu kutulazimisha kuja hapa kuunga mkono Mswada huo, ambao haukuwa unafaa. Kwa hivyo, nikasema “la”. Ukaja mswada wa pili ambao ulikuwa na tatizo kama hilo, nikasema “la”.

Bw. Naibu wa Spika, leo hii, kuna Mswada ambao umependekezwa kwetu na mhe. Imanyara, na ninampongeza mhe. Imanyara kwa kazi nzuri aliyofanya ya kuuandika Mswada huu vile inavyotakikana. Hakuyatoa mambo haya kutoka kwa kichwa chake, bali ameifuata sheria. Amefuata mapendekezo yaliyowekwa na kuratibishwa na viongozi wetu wakati walipoweka sahihi yale makubiliano baada ya vita.

Kipengele cha Nne cha ile memoranda waliyoweka sahihi kinasema kwamba mtu yeyote atakayepelekwa kortini kwa mashtaka ya kuvunja sheria ni lazima aondoke Serikalini. Mtu huyo ni lazima aondolewe madaraka pamoja na mshahara wake na marupurupu yote anayopata kutoka kwa Serikali. Wakuu wawili wanaoshikilia Serikalii, pamoja na wale Mawaziri wengine wanane waliokuwepo, waliweka kidole wenyewe.Walisema kwamba sheria ni lazima ifuatwe na korti kuandaliwa ili haki itendeke kwa walioadhirika.

Bw. Naibu wa Spika, ninashangaa kuona kwamba labda wameusahau huo mkataba waliouweka mbele ya macho ya wananchi wa Kenya. Bw. Ocampo aliwasili humu nchini kuyashughulikia mambo hayo lakini wale wazee wawili wanaoshikilia Serikali, ambao ninawaheshimu sana, walirudisha nyuso zao nyuma na kukataa kumuruhusu Bw. Ocambo kuwafungulia mashtaka wahalifu hao. Wawili hao waliogopa kusema hivyo kwa sababu miongoni mwa wale waliotenda madhambi hayo ni marafiki zao.

QUORUM

Mr. Mbadi: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. With a heavy heart,
this Bill is very important, given that it has far-reaching effects on this country but
looking around, I do not think the Quorum in this House is adequate enough to give this Bill enough attention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Indeed, we do not have a Quorum. So, could the Division Bell be rang?

(The Division Bell was rung)

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, there being no quorum, this House is, therefore, adjourned until this afternoon, Wednesday, 11th November 2009, at 2.30 p.m.

The House rose at 10.55 a.m.


Shame, Shame ,Shame! Where were the Members of Parliament? Where was the Voice of the people? In mombasa at a retreat? On our tax money? What about the Victims? When will they get Justice? Shame!

Why Does Kenya Have a Police Force? Police Reforms Are Necessary and Urgent in Order to Safeguard Fundamental Human Rights of Kenyan Citizens! Nothing Could Be More Urgent.n.com/kenya

Colleagues eventually traced the three Kenyan civil society activists arrested and beaten outside Parliament buildings yesterday after a nighttime search. Philo Ikonya was released from Gigiri Police Station last night at about 11 pm. Fwamba N.C Fwamba spent the night in custody at Gigiri Police Station, while Patrick Kamotho was held overnight at the Central Police Station. All three were charged this morning at the Chief Magistrates Court (High Court buildings Nairobi), Thursday February 19th 2009, with taking part in an unlawful assembly. The court has yet to release them (as of 12 noon Thursday) but they have been provisionally given a cash bail release of Ksh Ten Thousand each, which their colleagues are making arrangements to pay to facilitate their release. They will need legal and moral support as they face these charges and also require medical attention after assault by senior police officers while in custody. The Central Police Station briefly detained Gacheke of Bunge La Mwananchi after the disappearance of Philo, Fwamba and Kamotho before being released without charges.

The Partners for Change Philo Ikonya, Fwamba N.C. Fwamba and Patrick Kamotho who were arrested earlier are yet to be released. We have received information that Patrick Kamotho is held at The Parliament Police Station and is not allowed to be seen by friends and relatives. Philo Ikonya’s clothes were ripped off and the police have refused her access to clothing.

The three were earlier assaulted by the Central Police Station Deputy OCPD, the same officer who brutalized Activist Anne Njogu in 2007. Their Lawyers had earlier requested for P3 (assault complaint) Forms at 4.00PM but were denied on assurance that the forms will be given at 6.00PM. This is to show that the police cannot take any decision for possible urgent medical attention.The Police do not intend to release the Partners for Change according to their Lawyers.

As we went to Press we have eye witness information from Mwalimu Mati that Philo Ikonya has been sneaked out of Central Police Station. She Shouted out to him ” Mwalimu, they are taking me away”. Her whereabouts are now unknown.

The Partnership for Change is incensed by the numerous arrests that are going on especially when activists are going out in the public to demand for the reinforcement of the Laws that our Constitution provides which are fundamental human rights as recognized by international human rights legislations and domesticated by the Government of Kenya.

Click here to here to see over 1,200 media mentions of Police Brutality and Violations against Fundamental Human Rights of Kenyans by the Kenya police for the period January 2008 – January 2009.
Electronic Media
Print Media

The activists were amongst other Kenyans hoping to grab the attention of Minister for Agriculture, and Finance Minister, to act and prevent more deaths of Kenyans who are being affected by hunger and starvation which is threatening more than 10 million Kenyans.

Grand Coalition Government Unable to deliver the National Accord
Processions over the lack of food are not illegal as the people who were demonstrating were speaking on behalf of the many Kenyans that are going hungry today. It is ridiculous to see the kind of treatment the government is giving to the defenders of fundamental human rights such as the right to food and other very basic commodities essential to protect the poor and hungry from starvation caused by an irresponsible Government and Corrupt members of Parliament.

This government through its Law enforcement Officers has demonstrated that it is unable to handle the governance issues that it is responsible for creating and that it should step aside and pave the way for fresh elections to be held in order to offer alternative leadership for this country.

By and large the Partnership for Change recognizes that most Police Officers are good, decent and honest Kenyans. The problem in the Police Force is at the top, just like every other Public institution in Kenya. In need of an immediate thorough overhaul. The Citizen of Kenya must say NO to dictatorial Impunity in favour of Democracy and Accountability. The Rule of Law must prevail in Kenya.

The Minister for Justice has announced that over 830,000 Kenyans are awaiting Justice in the Courts. Is it right that the Government should continue arresting Kenyans for calling out for Justice?

We demand the unconditional release of the activists and that the Police reforms as reiterated in the Waki report be implemented to the letter in order to reform the police. Justice Waki said that these reforms must be immediate. What other mandate does the Grand Coalition Government have other than the National Accord?

The Waki report is clear as regards the conduct of state security agencies, they failed institutionally to anticipate, prepare for, and contain the violence. Often individual members of the state security agencies were also guilty of acts of violence and gross violations of the human rights of citizens.

Violation of the Human Rights of Citizens
The Kenyan Commission on Post Election Violence (CIPEV) completed its 4 month investigation into the politically motivated violence which rocked Kenya after the 2007 Presidential election with a stinging indictment of institutional failure and complicity of Kenya’s internal security apparatus in gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

The Commission’s report, delivered to the President of Kenya, charges that Kenyan security agencies “failed institutionally” to contain and prevent the violence. Justice Philip Waki, of the Kenya Court of Appeal, who chaired the Commission also presented the final report to the Kofi Annan led Panel of Eminent African Personalities.

The CIPEV report accuses some state agents of being “guilty of acts of violence and in our finding in broad violation of the human rights of citizens” and states that such were the results of a trend towards institutionalizing violence against the public. It also states that 1,133 Kenyans were killed and 405 of this number were killed by gun shots during the 2 month period.

Free-for-All Situation
The post election violence was not merely citizen to citizen attacks – it also consisted of systematic attacks against Kenyans based on their ethnicity and political persuasion. The ability of the state internal security apparatus to protect Kenyans from violence is harshly questioned, and the CIPEV took note of the fact that in some cases attackers traveled long distances, unhindered, to attack their victims.
The “free-for-all” was made possible by the collapse of state security which saw the police overwhelmed. This conclusion by Justice Waki must surely put the Police Commissioner, Major-General Hussein Ali, on the spot.

The names of the perpetrators and sponsors of the violence was kept in a sealed envelope, which was presented to Kofi Annan of the Panel of Eminent African Personalities pending establishment of the Special Tribunal for Kenya which was expected to try those bearing the greatest responsibility for crimes against humanity. The Panel of Eminent African Personalities may decide to send the names to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor for investigation now that Parliament has rejected the Constitutional Amendment Bill that was to establish the Special Tribunal. Surely the Police Commissioner, Major-General Hussein Ali, bears the greatest responsibility for crimes against humanity?.

The Grand Coalition Government continues to allow injustice to Kenyans by allowing a rogue Commissioner of Police to remain in his position one year after the chaos, and worse continues to allow his force to give illegal orders for the continued violations against the people of Kenya. Justice Waki called for the immediate reform of the Police Force. One year later this is where we are. Failure to deliver the National Accord! The truth is that Kenya’s Security Apparatus was Severely Indicted by Post Election Violence Report.

The structure of the Kenya Police

There are two police departments in Kenya. The first is the Kenya Police Force, established under the Police Act and headed by a Commissioner of Police who is appointed by the President under the Constitution. The second is the Administration Police, which is established under the Administration Police Act and is headed by the Administration Police Commandant.

The Police and Administration Police have various specialised units deal with various types of security threats.
The Police have the following units:
• Criminal Intelligence Department
• General Service Unit
• Police Air-Wing
• Presidential Escort
• Kenya Police College
• Kenya Airports Police Unit
• Tourist Police
• Railways Police
• Traffic Police
• Dog Unit
• Anti Stock Theft Unit
• Anti-Terrorism Unit
• Diplomatic Police
The specialised units within the Administration Police are as follows:
• Administration Police Training College
• Security of Government Buildings Unit
• Rapid Deployment Unit

Both the Police and Administration Police have provincial commands. The Police department has established divisions, stations and posts within these provincial commands, while the Administration Police have set up district commands.

The Police have been given various powers by the law to enable them to perform their functions. The Police generally have the authority to arrest, detain, search and charge a person who they have reason to believe has committed an offence. They also have powers to enter and search premises, homes or vehicles. They can also take fingerprints, photographs or other evidence to assist them with investigations or prosecution of criminal offences. A recent amendment to the Evidence Act does not allow the Police to take confessions from accused persons, which they could previously do. But as the Law gives the Police powers, the Law does not allow the Police to break the Law.


There is immediate need for Culture and attitude changes within the police force

From a Force to a Service
From meeting the interests of the rich and powerful to servicing the needs of all citizens
From centralised command and control and isolation from the community to community consultation, participation and partnership
From secrecy and lack of democratic accountability to local accountability and openness
From reactive to proactive and responsive
From law enforcement driven to the prevention of crime
From unsympathetic to victim focused
From detachment to integration with other elements of the justice sector
From abuse of human rights and unethical behaviour to the protection of human rights and ethical policing practices
Source: Department for International Development (DFID), Safety, Security and Access to Justice: Putting Policy into Practice, July 2002

The Role of the Police in society
Providing safety and security for its citizens is a major responsibility of government. The government ensures that there is security and safety through a department known as the Police Force, whose primary responsibility is to safeguard peace and order. The police enforce the law on behalf of the government for the following purposes:
• To protect the lives and property of the people of Kenya, and to help and reassure them. The police are required to uphold the law in a manner that protects the rights of individuals and the public good, and also to defend Kenya in the event of war or emergencies.
• To preserve peace and security. The police prevent and control behaviour that disturbs the public peace, including intervening in conflicts that arise between citizens
• To prevent and control crime. The police respond to and investigate crimes, and patrol the streets to prevent offences from occurring

Other than law enforcement, the police also provide services that deal with a wider range of needs of the community, including:
• Assisting in emergencies and life-threatening situations such as fires and accidents.
• Assisting in mediating disputes in families or in the community.
• Co-ordinating the safe and effective flow of traffic.
• Working with the community and other government departments to resolve issues of concern.

Security is therefore increasingly being viewed as an all-encompassing condition in which people and communities live in freedom, peace and safety, participate fully in the governance of their countries, enjoy the protection of fundamental rights, have access to resources and the basic necessities of life, and inhabit an environment which is not detrimental to their health and wellbeing. Security especially matters to the poor and other vulnerable groups, particularly women and children, because bad policing, weak justice systems and corruption mean that they suffer disproportionately from crime, insecurity and fear. They are consequently less likely to be able to access government services, invest in improving their own futures and escape from poverty. In addition, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, checks and balances in government, and functioning government institutions are also necessary for security and stability to thrive.

The Police have been given various powers by the law to enable them to perform their functions. The Police generally have the authority to arrest, detain, search and charge a person who they have reason to believe has committed an offence. They also have powers to enter and search premises, homes or vehicles. They can also take fingerprints, photographs or other evidence to assist them with investigations or prosecution of criminal offences. A recent amendment to the Evidence Act does not allow the Police to take confessions from accused persons, which they could previously do.

The use of these powers by the Police is controlled by the law, to ensure that they use correct procedures and also respect the rights of victims and offenders.

How the Police should perform their functions
Good policing is founded on the police doing their specific tasks well, and developing and sustaining effective partnerships with a range of other state institutions, civil society and business structures. An effective policing strategy ideally combines three components:
• Improving the core functions of the police: This includes patrolling/guarding, receiving charges from the public, detection of crime, preparing and conducting prosecutions;
• Mobilising a wide range of stakeholders in sustained efforts to prevent crime. This is sometimes referred to as community policing. It does not replace the core functions of the police, but enhances them;
• Emphasising that the police are an integral part of a wider system of justice, by fostering linkages with other parts of the government system and relevant civil society structures.

WE NEED TO AND MUST REFORM THE POLICE FORCE NOW!
Many problems affect the ability of the Kenyan police to perform their core functions effectively:

Inability to cope with increased crime

High poverty levels in Kenya have led to an increase in crime, anti-social behaviour and insecurity. Gender violence and crimes against children are especially on the rise. Regional instability has also led to the entry of illegal firearms and other weapons into Kenya, and organised crime in illegal immigrants and narcotics is also on the rise. Terrorism is also a real threat, with Kenya having been the target of terrorist activities in the past.

There is therefore an increased demand for police presence and services. The police force is, however, severely understaffed, with a police to population ratio of 1: 1,150 against the United Nations-recommended ratio of 1:450. In addition, poor pay and conditions of service in the police force do not attract quality recruits. This means a delayed response to reports of crime and very low rates of prevention and detection of crime. There is thus an urgent need to recruit more police officers. Recruitment, deployment and promotion of police should, however, be on the basis of clear and appropriate criteria, to avoid situations where police officers owe their positions to the patronage of individuals outside the police force. As was illustrated by the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission towards the end of 2005, recruitment of police officers is an area beset with corruption.

There is also a need to improve the terms of service of police officers, and to ensure effective deployment, with the police handling clear core functions. An example is that of driving and guarding VIPs, a task currently performed by the police, distracting them from their real work.

Endemic corruption

The Police have over the years consistently been cited in various surveys as one of the most corrupt institutions in the country, particularly in the surveys undertaken by the Kenya chapter of Transparency International. Apart from extortion by the police, the public have also complained of police torture, harassment, incivility and unlawful arrests. Corruption in the issuance of driving licenses to poorly trained drivers, and corrupt traffic officers, have been singled out as the major causes of the high rate of road accidents in Kenya.

Corruption in the police force has contributed to a general climate of lawlessness and has undermined the effectiveness of the fight against crime. There is a near total lack of public confidence in the competence and integrity of the police, and this has also resulted in low reporting levels of crime. Effective and transparent discipline procedures, accountability measures and an effective change management strategy for the police are urgently required to deal with the institutionalized corruption. This is important since there is likely to be strong resistance to change from within the police force.

Logistics and Facilities
The police require adequate transport and appropriate and modern equipment for the efficient and effective conduct of their duties. This includes vehicles, uniforms, communications equipment and firearms. Lack of transport and equipment prevents timely responses to criminal incidents and also means that many Kenyans, especially in the rural areas, have little access to the police. It also affects the transport of prisoners to court for remand or trial hearings.

Other facilities that the police currently need are housing and accommodation; medical and welfare schemes; and recreational facilities The challenges faced by the police in this regard are inadequate budget allocations with irregular and unpredictable funding that prevents effective planning and development. Existing procurement procedures are cumbersome, bureaucratic and too slow.

Training

Many junior officers in the police force are under-skilled. This is particularly critical given the increasing sophistication of crime, and has led to inappropriate approaches to prevention of crime; poor management of scenes of crime; and incompetent prosecution of criminal cases. So training is needed not only to impart the necessary policing skills, but to also effect a change of culture and attitudes within the police force, from the prevailing culture of corruption and impunity, to one of service and respect for human rights. There is also a need to train the officers who will be responsible for implementing change within the police. The following table illustrates the culture and attitude changes required within the police force.

Partnerships and Community Policing
The police are supplemented by non-state structures such as community guards and private security. In Kenya, non-state policing systems have developed in line with village structures, and include vigilante groups and neighbourhood watches. They are an important element in ensuring safety and security for people living in remote areas. The other non-state policing prevalent in Kenya are private security companies, often used by business enterprises and people living in urban areas to provide an alternative or additional visible policing presence. Civil society also plays a critical role in increasing accountability in the police force by demanding change, acting as a watchdog over the actions of the police and also providing technical input, especially in training and equipment.

Non-state bodies can, however, resort to mob justice and can easily fall under the control of political factions and become unruly and uncontrollable. Civil society can also become politicised and promote divisions within society or simply engage in irresponsible behaviour that leads to more conflict. Therefore, while both state and non-state policing are integral to improving safety and security, they both need to operate properly and effectively. Principles that guide effective policing by both the police and non-state security structures are:
• The roles that each of the security actors plays must be well-defined and transparent;
• The security organisation itself must be professional;
• The security organisations and civil society must adhere to human rights and democratic governance practices.

The Kenya Police have introduced a Community Policing programme as part of their reform initiatives. The programme involves the community in fighting crime and recognises the shared responsibility of the police and community to ensure a safe and secure environment. It is aimed at establishing active and equal partnerships between the police and public through which crime and community safety issues can be jointly discussed and solutions determined and implemented.

Linkages

Public safety and security depend not on the police alone, but on the effective working of the entire justice system. It is therefore important to supplement the efforts of the police with parallel efforts to improve the judiciary and penal correction (prisons) system. Such a sector-wide approach has now been adopted under the Governance – Justice, Law and Order Sector (GJLOS) Programme and is also emphasised in the government’s Economic Recovery Strategy.

What can be done?

Improving transparency and accountability
• Without transparent access to information about the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and budgets, it is impossible to hold the police to account. The process by which the legal arrangements guiding the police are determined must be transparent, and a conscious effort must also be made to ensure that the basic documents governing the police are disseminated as widely as possible, and that the police are internally transparent, for example by setting up police complaints desks. The wide dissemination of information will help produce policies consistent with democratic governance of the police department, and help the public monitor the effective implementation of these policies.
• Accountability in the police departments means that the police are subordinate to certain government authorities, must explain their actions to these authorities (indirect accountability) and civil society (direct accountability), and are subject to sanctions for inappropriate actions as well as for inadequately explaining their actions. Civil society has an important role to play in promoting security-sector accountability, by tracking behaviour, drawing attention to deviations from national and international laws and good practice, suggesting ways of improving accountability, serving on public oversight and accountability bodies, and promoting dialogue between members of the security bodies and the public.

• A range of independent bodies can also play a role in enhancing transparency and accountability in the security sector. Given sufficient independence and credibility, the following can be useful:

• Public complaints bodies such as an independent Police Complaints Authority with powers of access and investigation.

• The Kenya National Commission for Human Rights Commission which has the potential to improve systems of accountability by dealing with complaints, and investigating violations of the law.

• The office of Ombudsman to investigate alleged human rights abuses by state bodies.

Security and intelligence structure often try to limit the amount and quality of the information they release. The demands of national security do sometimes require some secrecy and confidentiality, but too much of it can be counter-productive. Secrecy can for example be used as a cover for financial mismanagement or illegal activities. Proper accountability and transparency require that information be withheld only for legitimate reasons – which need to be tightly defined. It is therefore vital to be clear about what is being held in confidence and why it is considered sensitive.

Clear legal framework

The Police should operate within a clear legal and institutional framework governing their roles, mandates, and the hierarchy of authority between them, the legislature and the executive. Apart from the Police and Administration Police Acts, the only other legal provisions governing the operations of the police are those in the Constitution which establish the Police Service Commission and give it powers over the appointment and discipline of police officers. The Kenyan Constitution should, at a minimum, specify lines of authority within the Police, and the basic responsibilities and broad democratic principles to which members of the Police Force should adhere. The relevant legislation should then provide the details of governing the police, including the necessary accountability and oversight measures. The law should make it clear who has external and internal roles respectively, and how internal responsibilities are apportioned.
Non-state policing structures are currently not covered by national legislation, and need to be brought within the national legal and security framework to ensure that they act professionally and in accordance with national security policies.

Oversight measures

• The Legislature offers a mechanism to monitor and control the police through the approval of the government’s security policies and budgets; and overseeing expenditure, procurement, operations and deployments within the Police Force. The quality of legislative oversight, however, depends partly on the effectiveness of its structures and systems such as the committee system, and partly on the competence and knowledge of the legislators.

• Ministries responsible for managing the security forces need to be able to do so effectively. They include the Defence, Planning and Finance Ministries. Other ministries should also be able to take an informed interest in the police, given the implications of police actions for their activities. Ministers and civil servants from a number of departments need to be involved in the policy and planning processes for the Police Department, and will need an understanding of the security issues both broadly and in relation to their respective departmental concerns.

• The quality and effect of oversight measures will however depend on the following factors:
o The independence and accountability of oversight bodies;
o Guaranteed access of oversight bodies to financial resources;
o Clear delineation of the functions of oversight bodies;
o Knowledge of security issues and governing processes among oversight personnel; and
o Confidence building between security personnel and oversight personnel.

These reforms must take first priority. The fundamental human rights of Kenyans are not negotiable!

Kenya’s Security Apparatus Severely Indicted by Post Election Violence Report

Kenya’s Security Apparatus Severely Indicted by Post Election Violence Report (Changes seem inevitable as the Police Commissioner draws Commission’s Ire):

As regards the conduct of state security agencies, they failed institutionally to anticipate, prepare for, and contain the violence. Often individual members of the state security agencies were also guilty of acts of violence and gross violations of the human rights of citizens.

Violation of the Human Rights of Citizens
The Kenyan Commission on Post Election Violence (CIPEV) has completed its 4 month investigation into the politically motivated violence which rocked Kenya after the 2007 Presidential election with a stinging indictment of institutional failure and complicity of Kenya’s internal security apparatus in gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

The Commission’s report, delivered to the President of Kenya today, charges that Kenyan security agencies “failed institutionally” to contain and prevent the violence. Justice Philip Waki, of the Kenya Court of Appeal, chaired the Commission and is also expected to present the final report to the Kofi Annan led Panel of Eminent African Personalities.

The CIPEV report accuses some state agents of being “guilty of acts of violence and in our finding in broad violation of the human rights of citizens” and states that such were the results of a trend towards institutionalizing violence against the public. It also states that 1,133 Kenyans were killed and 405 of this number were killed by gun shots during the 2 month period.

Free-for-All Situation
The violence was spontaneous in some areas and as a result of planning in other areas. Sponsors of the violence included politicians and business leaders. Incidents of spontaneous violence after the announcement of the Electoral Commission of December 30th 2007, morphed into planned violence against Party of National Unity supporters, and revenge attacks against Orange Democratic Movement supporters. The victims were identified by their attackers mainly on account of their ethnicity and perceived political bent.

But the post election violence was not merely citizen to citizen attacks – it also consisted of systematic attacks against Kenyans based on their ethnicity and political persuasion. The ability of the state internal security apparatus to protect Kenyans from violence is harshly questioned, and the CIPEV took note of the fact that in some cases attackers traveled long distances, unhindered, to attack their victims.

The “free-for-all” was made possible by the collapse of state security which saw the police overwhelmed. This conclusion by Justice Waki must surely put the Police Commissioner, Major-General Hussein Ali, on the spot.

A Shoot from the Lip Moment from the General

[MEDIA=35]

I would do exactly what I did. I would not change a thing my Lords, and that is the honest truth – Major General Ali Hussein Ali – July 9th 2008

Major-General Ali was the first witness before the CIPEV and refused to admit that the police were overwhelmed all the while justifying the use of deadly force. He infamously stated that “I would do exactly what I did. I would not change a thing my Lords, and that is the honest truth” when asked by Justice Waki for his honest opinion on the Police Force’s actions and whether he had reflected on any possible acts or omissions by the Kenya Police during the 2-month period that violence raged across Kenya. Clearly Major General Ali has no apologies to make to the victims of Police bloodlust or to the Kenyan public for the use of force against civilians. His recalcitrance and complete lack of empathy for the victims of his force’s excesses raises questions as to his suitability for the position he holds. How long will he keep his job? Indeed, why should he keep it a moment longer after being so roundly exposed by the CIPEV report?

Internal Security Failure
Justice Waki’s Commission charges the Police Force with “failure” in concert with its other internal security counterparts, the Provincial Administration, the Administration Police, and the National Security Intelligence Service. Their collective failure to act on intelligence reports contributed to the violence. Justice Waki also condemns “indifferent” state agencies such as the NSIS which possessed knowledge that apparently was not properly shared. Finally, the CIPEV concludes that the effectiveness of the Kenya Police and the Administration Police was hampered by inter alia “political expediency” impacting their work.

The report which, President Kibaki has directed should be made public today, recommends changes to the inter-agency coordination and joint operation structures of the Kenyan internal security apparatus. Among these are the merging of the Kenya Police and the Administration Police and the establishment of an Independent Police Authority.

Kenyan Politicians and Business Leaders fingered in Militia Killings – Recommends a Special Tribunal for Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Kenya – but prosecutions may not immediately follow

In previous episodes of political violence (since the 1990s) militias have been active. Since the last episode of violence in 2002, many such militias appear to not have been demobilized. During the 2007/8 eruption of violence, the militias were reactivated by “politicians and business leaders” who intended to overtly use violence as a tactic in the power struggle that followed the 2007 election announcement.

Justice Waki’s Commission identifies Kenya’s constitutional framework as a causative factor in the 2007/8 violence – repeatedly raising the stakes in election after election with ethnic coalitions confronting each other. The Commission specifically identified the concentration of power around the Presidency as a contributing factor to the Violence of 2007/8; and the flashpoint for what became an ethno-geographical power struggle between the Party of National Unity and the Orange Democratic Movement Party after the contentious announcement by the Electoral Commission of Kenya of Kibaki’s reelection.

According to Justice Waki, CIPEV obtained evidence identifying prominent sponsors and perpetrators of violence (“in politics, in government, in business and elsewhere”) and devised a means to anticipate and deal with the problem of political impunity in Kenya, and the need to secure real witness protection for informants. The Commission has recommended the creation of a special tribunal with a mandate to try persons for crimes against humanity committed during the post election period.

To safeguard against political vested interests in Kenya, the CIPEV has recommended that the Tribunal should have international members, as well as international prosecution and investigation staff. It expects that the proposed “Special Tribunal for Kenya” will be set up in Kenya as a court and will try those with the greatest responsibility for crimes against humanity.

The names of the perpetrators and sponsors of the violence will be kept in a sealed envelope, which is to be shortly presented to Kofi Annan of the Panel of Eminent African Personalities, pending establishment of the Special Tribunal for Kenya. It expects that the proposed tribunal will be set up in Kenya as a court and will try those bearing the greatest responsibility for crimes against humanity. The Panel of Eminent African Personalities may decide to send the names to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor for investigation.

Read Full Report:
Kenya Post Election Violence Report CIPEV 15 10 2008

Kiswahili Version
Kenya Post Election Violence Report CIPEV 15 10 2008

Appendixes
Comprehensive Reform of the Kenya Police CIPEV Specific Recommendations 15th October 2008 pp478 481

Appendix G – Commissioner of Police Ali Transfer of Senior Police Officers

Appendix C – Kenya National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS) Assessment of Presidential Election Outcomes and Consequences

Appendix H – Nyanza Province Sample Analysis of Arms and Ammunition Movement Registers 27 December 07 to 17 January 2008