KILOMETRES DON'T PAY TAXES; VOTERS DO!

Remarks by some politicians that one kilometer should be equal to one vote are not only ludicrous but ignoble too. In elementary law and political science classes, the professors teach that democracy is the rule of the majority with the consent of the minority. This is the very tenet of competitive politics as practiced in democratic societies. Republican constitutions embrace this principle through the principle of universal suffrage. In Federal democracies, like the USA and Nigeria, every federate state is represented in the Senate by two senators but the population of registered voters determines the relative strength of each state in the selection of the Chief Executive of the country.

These simple basics seem to elude some politicians and members of 4th Estate. The issue of equal or proportional representation is hinged on the state's authority to collect revenue and the mandate to guarantee territorial integrity and provide security and other basic necessities to citizens. And what constitutes a state; territory, citizens/people and a functioning government. Under contemporary international law a mass of land devoid of human habitation is considered as politically dead. This is why, uninhabited, unclaimed or ungoverned territories like the the political dead zone near the center of the Arctic sea are the focus of competing territorial claims between the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, and Denmark.

Politics is about influence. Successful politics is power, and power is fundamentally about economics and money; who has what and what goes where. States obtain money through taxation authorized by a legitimate legislative authority. Law is essentially about the power relations between the rulers and the ruled. Elected representatives make laws and determine these relationships as well as codes and tariff rates payable to the state. Proportional representation is therefore premised on the state's legitimacy to make laws and the ability to raise tax revenue from the citizens; whether human or corporate. This was the basis of the famous pronouncement by the founders of the USA that, "no taxation without representation".

It follows logically that equal and proportional representation must at all times reflect either the majority will of the human citizenry or the economic might of the corporate citizenry of any given state. This is why in all countries today large community groups and corporate bodies hold sway over legislation and other affairs of the state.

The people of Nyanza, Western and Mount Kenya regions should not request anybody for more constituencies. It is their inalienable right to be properly and fairly represented in parliament where laws regarding collection and distribution of state resources are made. At the moment they are under-represented and every person with elementary education knows this. Those who suggest that every kilometer should be equated with one vote are jokers, kilometers do not pay tax; people do and hence the adage; one man one vote! Holding large swathes of barren, idle and unexploited territory should have little or no influence on the affairs of any civilized state unless that territory holds invaluable economic resources or the potential for economic exploitation by and for the benefit of the controlling state. This is basically why no single country is fighting to control or represent the Sahara ! Even the territory the POLISARIO is fighting for in Western Sahara is often described as economically useless, heavily mined and almost uninhabited to justify the apparent disinterest by the international community to resolve the long-standing conflict between the Saharawi and Morocco. Consequently, anybody who advocates for the highly populated constituencies of Kenya to remain under-represented should also campaign for residents of these regions to be freed from paying some taxes.

CONFLICT BETWEEN THE REGULAR & ADMINISTRATION POLICE: TOO MUCH FUSS OVER NOTHING.

The media is abuzz with reports of an apparent conflict between the regular police and their Administration police counterparts over allocation of resources and overlapping mandate. Is this conflict real or imaginary?

The two forces are creation of the Police and the Administration Police Acts, Chapters 84 and 85 of the Laws of Kenya respectively. Historically, the regular police has always enjoyed a preeminent position in matters of national security. The force was established in 1906 with the aim of providing security to the business class, the Kenya-Uganda railway and guarding the exclusive urban quarters of European settlers. The situation persist to date and section 108 of the Constitution ranks the regular police higher than the Administration Police in the hierarchy of the disciplined forces. The Commissioner of Police is a constitutional office holder answerable to the President whereas the Commandant of the Administration Police is a mere delegate of the Minister of State for Internal Security and Provincial Administration who is statutorily the commandant of the AP under section 3(2) of the Administration Police Act.

The regular police have an extensive mandate of enforcing all laws and regulations, protecting life and property, preserving peace, preventing and detecting crime and apprehending offenders to maintain law and order in the Kenya. On the other hand the APs main role is assisting government officers (read provincial administrators and other civil servants) in the execution of their lawful duties, preservation of public peace and national defence in the event of war or an emergency. The AP has a limited role in the prevention of crime and apprehension of offenders. Then how do their mandates overlap?

Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 75 Laws of Kenya provides in that a “Police Officer" means a Police officer or an Administration Police officer. The Penal Code, Chapter 63 Laws of Kenya stipulates that 'Police Force' includes the force defined in section 2 of the Police Act, and the Administration Police Force established under the Administration Police Act; and the term "Police Officer' shall be construed accordingly. Section 89 (4) of the Criminal procedure Code empowers police officers to prepare and sign a formal charge or complaint for commence criminal proceedings before a magistrate. Although section 19 of the Police Act and section 9 of the Administration Police Act authorise officers from the two forces to charge criminal offenders, this role is traditionally performed by the regular police who also formally investigate crime. The APs do not investigate crime and their role of preventing commission of offences and apprehension of offenders is auxiliary rather than conflicting to that of the regular police. Why are the two forces feuding then?

Different historical, philosophical and operational foundations and the rapid transformation of the AP are the real issues underlying the perceived conflict. Formed in 1929 as a district based tribal outfit to assist colonial administrators in the collection of tax revenue and prosecution of criminal cases before the Native Courts, the Administration Police (APs) force has over the years been transformed into a professional entity with a dominant national presence. The APs are now organised into easily deployable agile and flexible units which make them a common site all over the country. They are well spread out in the rural areas where they provide back up to the provincial administration. Their presence in rural villages and urban slums where they work hand in hand with chiefs provides an all pervading sense of security to underprivileged communities. APs also play the role of a territorial army in far-flung marginal pastoral areas and border districts. They live with the people and are well equipped and attuned to provide basic security and resolve minor social disputes. More and more communities are now turning to the administration police for assistance in dealing with serious offences such as armed robbery and drug abuse. This is causing jitters in the leadership regular police who think the APs tinkering with their territory.

In contrast the regular police was greatly involved in the arrest, detention and suppression of African nationalists at the height of the struggle for independence. The force was similarly used in the 1980s and 1990s to crack down on political dissidents who were demanding greater freedoms in opposition to KANUs one party rule. Many intellectuals and current and former members of parliament were arrested, detained or hauled into courts late in the evening by the infamous Special Branch then a section the regular police. The regular police are organised into rigid and reactive structures. They predominantly interact with the general public when carrying out arrests, responding to incidents of violent crime or quelling social and political unrest; tasks which they always perform ham-fisted. This history and management philosophy of the regular police has not endeared the force to the general public. The much touted community policing envisaged in the Kenya Police Strategic Plan (2003-2007) has essentially become a cropper since the general public has little or no trust and confidence in the regular police.

Pundits have argued that a merger of the two forces is the only panacea for this jostling over turf. This proposal is reactive, myopic and not strategic. Kenya is not the only country with law enforcement agencies that have overlapping mandates. The United States has well over 120 law enforcement agencies with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Central Intelligence (CIA) being the most visible. The two agencies spar occasionally over turf and territory but this rarely gets into the public limelight owing to excellent managers who never let sibling rivalry by their minions get into the way of the overall objective of providing national security. Strengthening the AP does not necessarily weaken the regular police since the two play very diverse albeit complimentary roles. The two units only require excellent managers who can provide strategic transformative leadership and resolve petty invidiousness between their operatives for the overall national good.

AL-SHABAAB: LET SOMALIS BE, IT IS THEIR BABY, NOT KENYA’S

I wish to comment on the numerous editorials by journalists in the mainstream media on the current fighting in Somalia. Allow me to do so passionately because I am a trained military officer who did the ropes, served his time and left the military early to pursue other interests.

First I am amazed at the level of ignorance displayed by many Kenyan journalists on military issues and matters regarding war. I thought that all journalists are taught the basics on every conceivable subject that they write on, but anyway that is for another day.

Many (journalists) seem to support the idea that Kenya should send it armed forces to Somalia to fight the Al-Shabaab. My question to them is, go to war over what and why? What dispute does Kenya have against the group or the Somali populace who support the militia? What would be the justification of waging war against a loosely held group of outlaws seeking to overthrow the government of Somalia? The current war in Somalia is an internal armed insurrection that does not warrant intervention by a neighbouring state. It is not Kenya’s problem that the fledgling government in Mogadishu is too weak to deal with an internal armed insurrection, neither is it the responsibility of the Republic of Kenya to shore up a government that the Somali people consider to a puppet of some foreign power(s). Al-Shabaab cannot thrive if the citizens of Somalia or a sizeable population thereof do not believe in its cause. The militia is thriving because there are certain sections of the Somali populace who are persuaded by its declared cause and are offering active support and comfort to its members and fighters. A militia force is not a conventional static force; it is ever active and lives and thrives amongst a complacent populace and “eats” from them.

Al – Shabaab and many other armed groups in Somalia have raised the issue of legitimacy against the government of Sheikh Ahmed. This is a complex matter and as you rightly put it, even Ethiopia failed to pacify the warring factions in Somalia over a two-year period. For starters, it is important to know that when you are fighting an internal armed group, it is not enough to capture territory and grounds of tactical importance; you must win the war in the minds and hearts of the people too. Ethiopia failed to do so and this is why the issue of legitimacy has stalked the Somali Transitional Federal Government since Ethiopia’s invasion. The United States is facing similar issues in Iraq and Afghanistan despite its enormous military might. I highly doubt that Kenya would fair any better compared to Ethiopia. It is important for those who are propagating for war against Al-Shabaab to understand that no government can competently administer a territory if there is lingering question over its legitimacy. This is a question which Somalis alone must address and answer alone. The TFG has consistently failed to marshal international support and recognition owing to lingering questions over its legitimacy. Their war over the legitimacy of the TFG is their war and not Kenya’s. Kenya’s intervention will not solve this issue; it might even escalate it considering that Nairobi is the rear tactical and logistical base for all of Somalia’s politicians, militia commanders and their backers.

Secondly, just suppose Kenya were to intervene in Somalia to fight the Al-Shabaab and shore up the TFG; where will be the front? Many war mongers do not seem to remember that Kenya has a 1200 km frontier with Somalia which is largely un-policed and highly volatile. What ground of tactical importance would our armed forces seek to hold against the militia? A militia group is not static or encamped force; it is a highly mobile, agile and versatile amorphous force which periodically mutates depending on the nature of the threat at hand. It is obvious that Kenya would be stretched to protect its civilian population and installations against retaliatory incursions by the militia. How would Kenya deal with the armed and non-armed members of the group? Would they be considered prisoners of war and therefore entitled to the privileges accorded to POWs under the Geneva Conventions? And if so, where would they be incarcerated during the war period? Or would they be handed over to the TFG for “trial”. Before anybody beats the drums of war, they should think about the withdrawal strategy. Al-Shabaab is fighting a proxy war funded by foreign powers and wealthy merchants and is likely to stake it out as long as the purse strings remain open. Unless Kenya is willing to put itself in a similar position as the USA is in Iraq and Afghanistan, then war against Al- Shabaab is not a worthy venture.

Finally, any support for the option of war against Al-Shabaab should be accompanied by a personal declaration that one is willing to be conscripted or have his children, siblings and other relatives conscripted for war. Anyone who imagines that the current standing Kenyan army will be sent to be the front to fight Al-Shabaab is an ignorant day-dreamer. Read the Armed Forces Act, Cap 199 well and you will know that a declaration of an international armed conflict between Kenya and another state will be followed immediately by massive conscription of young people who will be sent to the war front to become cannon fonder. Any volunteers? I have a reserve liability of about 15 years and it is likely that I would be called out for military service in the event of a long drawn war. I would not honour such a call from the Commander-in-Chief because I hold the view that going to Somalia to fight any group is an unjustifiable misadventure which will serve no veritable cause apart from massaging the egos of war-mongers who will be watching the children of the poor die in the war front from the comfort of their villas.

Twitter: DecaptainCFE 

IS JUSTICE MINISTER GUILTY OF FAILURE & COLLECTIVE LETHARGY IN THE WAR AGAINST CORRUPTION?

Power is sweet, truly sweet, but only to those who have it!
- Anonymous

Until last Friday I reckoned myself as an informed Kenyan well-versed at least with matters legal and strategies for the detection, investigation and prosecution of fraud and corruption. I was rated otherwise by none other than the Hon. Martha Wangari Karua, EGH, M.P., Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs.

According to official government circulars and websites, the Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs is responsible for constitutional matters, legal policy, anti-corruption strategies, integrity and ethics, human rights and social justice as well as the development of the overall policy for the administration of justice in the Republic of Kenya. The minister’s mandate also extends to the general superintendence of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC), the co-ordination of the Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector (GJLOS), the Public Complaints Standing Committee (Ombudsman) and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights inter alia.

Even with such an elaborate and glamorous job description Minister Martha Karua does not think it is her business to fight or direct the fight against corruption in Kenya. And she put this down in writing. Last Friday I had the temerity to interrupt Minister Karua’s peace and remind her of her duties to the taxpayers of Kenya. In turn I got a stern response characteristic of the minister’s public demeanour. My verbatim text message to the minister read “Waziri, KACC, Police, AG & Judiciary have failed to reign in corruption under your watch as Min. for ‘Justice’. Many are losing faith in you, pse act now!” Her response was swift and stern; “You are ignorant, none is under me police are under Saitoti, AG is a Minister like me and Judiciary is independent. My Ministry formulates policy.” (The text was devoid of punctuations but I have put them to ease comprehension). Curiously the minister did not mention KACC in her response. Or has KACC been moved away from her docket? May be! To her credit, she has in the past scathingly attacked the anti-corruption outfit and even demanded the resignation of its Director and Chief Executive Justice (Rtd) Aaron Gitonga Ringeera over alleged incompetence. I worked for KACC in 2006 and I have very strong views on the retired judge’s leadership and management style but that is a story for another day.

The import of the minister’s text message is a glaring shirking of responsibility and admission of collective lethargy in the war against corruption in Kenya. Perhaps the learned minister does not understand the plain and ordinary meaning of words and phrases like “policy on administration of justice”, “anti-corruption strategies”, “integrity and ethics”, “human rights and social justice” and “Co-ordination of the Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector (GJLOS)”. But how can she? She is a powerful person and does not appear before apathetic magistrates, require the protection of irascible policemen and ravenous chiefs or feed on subsidized maize meal. Or maybe she is now too engaged with her ambition to become president that such mundane matters make little sense to her.

Minister Karua would like “ignorant” taxpayers like you and I to believe that her ministry is not responsible for the fight against corruption because she does not control the Kenya Police; the Attorney General is her Cabinet colleague; the Judiciary is independent and her work is just to write academic papers only fit for the shelves. She is admitting what we all know; that no single minister in the Grand “Collusion” Government has the spine to fight corruption because they are all partakers and beneficiaries of the vice. She is admitting lack of a strategic intra-government policy to fight corruption and failure to advise the President, the Prime Minister and her cabinet colleagues. This is gross dereliction of ministerial duty.

Perhaps I am just an ignorant busy body as the minister suggests. You see, I hold a Bachelor’s degree in Law from the University of Nairobi. I am an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and I have a Postgraduate Diploma in Human Resources Management. I am a Certified Public Secretary (Kenya) and a Certified Fraud Examiner and an MBA candidate at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology. Professionally I am the Chairperson of the Association of the Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE)-Kenya Chapter, member of the Law Society of Kenya’s Human Rights and Ethics Committees, Assistant Politics Editor (Law) for KenyaImagine and member, Institute of Certified Public Secretaries. Privately I chair the Board of Governors, Mweru High School- Nyeri; sit on the Board of Governors, Giathugu Secondary School-Nyeri and serve as member of the Executive Committee of the Public Service Club. Yes, that is the résumé of an ignorant taxpayer according to the Member of Parliament for Gichugu. I have no idea how she rates her constituents most of who are contemporaries of my good old parents.

Minister Martha Karua needs to do one thing; climb down from the lofty tower of legalese and join the ordinary taxpayer who rides a matatu from Dandora to work in the morning and goes back home in the evening the same way. May be she will then understand what “justice” is and perhaps appreciate the role of her ministry in the eyes of taxpayers. It is a long shot, but it is possible. You can do it Waziri!

NAKUMATT DOWNTOWN FIRE SAGA & CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

From details collected from here and there; it is now emerging that the management of Nakumatt Downtown may be culpable of serious dereliction of duty and criminal negligence which led to the unfortunate death of innocent shoppers.

That security guards may have been instructed to "close the exit doors" to restrain shoppers from leaving the mart with unpaid for goods and merchandise. This most callous behaviour is reminiscent of the arrogance of merciless, faceless corporate bodies that have little regard for human life and operate on the principle that "cash is king".

Consumer protection and physical safety of customers, patrons and clientele are the cornerstones of retail chain operators. The defensive measly whispers we are hearing from the top management of the supermarket chain regarding the safety precautions in their establishment are untenable.

Consumerism is not sustainable in a market that operates without regard for basic rules relating to human safety. We must do something to save ourselves against these kinds of businesses. For a start we need to raise the awareness of our people. As managers we should not rush to blame the government; read the Factories Act, the Fire Act, the Public Health Act, the Building Code and Retail Business Premises By-Laws of the City Council in detail. And then start an active boycott of all chain retail markets that do not comply with these laws and regulations fully. Tell your workmate, neighbour, child, friend, relative etc create a chain of informed people; refuse to buy goods without a bar code and quality and standardisation mark of the Kenya Bureau of Standards.

For a start, I am boycotting the NAKUMATT chain until the management of the retail group allow all their premises to be inspected and/or get issued with PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY CERTIFICATE by the City Council. Do something too!

YES, TOGETHER WE CAN reclaim our nation from these merchants of death and their political benefactors, THE TIME IS NOW!