With the swearing in of the Makau Mutua-led taskforce on victims’ compensation, the difficult task of determining the parameters of compensation, defining the victims and fixing the quantum of compensation starts. Theirs is a hard task, not made easier by an environment of skepticism on anything with a government tag.
It must have been agonising for LSK President Faith Odhiambo and human rights defenders like Amnesty International’s Irungu Houghton to reject a populist stand and join the taskforce.
That, however, is what leadership is about. We live in a world led by populism, not principle, what they call in America “leadership by opinion poll”.
It is therefore heartening when, once in a whil,e a leader, who is otherwise popular, is moved by conviction to reject the polls and move in different directions, believing in the rightness of their action.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
In ‘Long Walk to Freedom’ Nelson Mandela is quoted as saying “there are times when a leader must move out ahead of the flock, go off in a new direction, confident that he is leading people the right way”.
May history vindicate these Kenyans. As the taskforce commences its tough task, it must focus on two critical things. Firstly, it must recognise that it is accountable to the people, not to the government.
While government must be commended for setting up the taskforce, it must not be forgotten that government is the perpetrator of the wrongful acts. Government’s role must therefore be limited to providing the team with resources to enable it work and providing the compensation funds once assessed.
The taskforce’s client are the victims, direct and indirect, of the brutality, now an unfortunate part of Kenya’s protest culture. An approach that focusses on victims is the only way to win some trust from a skeptical public. Speaking of the focus on victims, their marginalisation in the discourse on the legitimacy of the taskforce has been disconcerting. In the protestations emanating largely from civil society, the view of victims was sacrificed on the altar of the popular, sometimes politics clothed in contestable constitutional garb.
Fortunately, wisdom and insight and a focus on the victim have won. That is not to say it will be an easy walk. I am sure within government there will be those who will want the team’s integrity compromised and its processes bungled.
My faith (forgive the pun) is that the human right defenders in the team, people with local and international reputations to protect, will do us proud and refuse to be coopted into acting against victim’s interests.
Secondly, beyond financial compensation, the team should spend as much energy providing policy guidance on how to best engender a culture of responsible protest, most importantly within the police. We inherited police brutality from our colonial oppressors, and this is one vestige we have refused to let go.
Despite numerous reform proposals, the most comprehensive having been made by former High Court Judge Philip Ransley and the most recent by Chief Justice Emeritus David Maraga, little has changed in police training and consequently in police attitudes to the public.
This must change; otherwise this will not be our last rodeo. Having spoken to police officers in the course of my work, I know theirs is also a difficult task. Well-meaning officers struggle with determining how to manage unruly crowds including those taking advantage of protests to damage and steal people’s properties, when the officers are totally outnumbered.
In their view, lethal force is sometimes a necessary evil, without which they would be overwhelmed, and thuggery would reign. These are legitimate concerns that require attention. What changes ought we to make, including in diversity of tools that we provide to the police to counter protests, that replace live bullets but are nevertheless effective?
Should we designate areas of protest away from public property that enable people make their case without inconveniencing and endangering the rest? We wish the team well. If they succeed, it will be our collective gain. If they fail, they will place an enduring nail on the coffin of public mistrust of anything government. That cannot be the way to build a progressive, sustainable nation.
-The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
With the swearing in of the Makau Mutua-led taskforce on victims’ compensation, the difficult task of determining the parameters of compensation, defining the victims and fixing the quantum of compensation starts. Theirs is a hard task, not made easier by an environment of skepticism on anything with a government tag.
It must have been agonising for LSK President Faith Odhiambo and human rights defenders like Amnesty International’s Irungu Houghton to reject a populist stand and join the taskforce.
That, however, is what leadership is about. We live in a world led by populism, not principle, what they call in America “leadership by opinion poll”.
It is therefore heartening when, once in a whil,e a leader, who is otherwise popular, is moved by conviction to reject the polls and move in different directions, believing in the rightness of their action.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
In ‘Long Walk to Freedom’ Nelson Mandela is quoted as saying “there are times when a leader must move out ahead of the flock, go off in a new direction, confident that he is leading people the right way”.
May history vindicate these Kenyans. As the taskforce commences its tough task, it must focus on two critical things. Firstly, it must recognise that it is accountable to the people, not to the government.
While government must be commended for setting up the taskforce, it must not be forgotten that government is the perpetrator of the wrongful acts. Government’s role must therefore be limited to providing the team with resources to enable it work and providing the compensation funds once assessed.
The taskforce’s client are the victims, direct and indirect, of the brutality, now an unfortunate part of Kenya’s protest culture. An approach that focusses on victims is the only way to win some trust from a skeptical public. Speaking of the focus on victims, their marginalisation in the discourse on the legitimacy of the taskforce has been disconcerting. In the protestations emanating largely from civil society, the view of victims was sacrificed on the altar of the popular, sometimes politics clothed in contestable constitutional garb.
Fortunately, wisdom and insight and a focus on the victim have won. That is not to say it will be an easy walk. I am sure within government there will be those who will want the team’s integrity compromised and its processes bungled.
My faith (forgive the pun) is that the human right defenders in the team, people with local and international reputations to protect, will do us proud and refuse to be coopted into acting against victim’s interests.
Secondly, beyond financial compensation, the team should spend as much energy providing policy guidance on how to best engender a culture of responsible protest, most importantly within the police. We inherited police brutality from our colonial oppressors, and this is one vestige we have refused to let go.
Despite numerous reform proposals, the most comprehensive having been made by former High Court Judge Philip Ransley and the most recent by Chief Justice Emeritus David Maraga, little has changed in police training and consequently in police attitudes to the public.
This must change; otherwise this will not be our last rodeo. Having spoken to police officers in the course of my work, I know theirs is also a difficult task. Well-meaning officers struggle with determining how to manage unruly crowds including those taking advantage of protests to damage and steal people’s properties, when the officers are totally outnumbered.
In their view, lethal force is sometimes a necessary evil, without which they would be overwhelmed, and thuggery would reign. These are legitimate concerns that require attention. What changes ought we to make, including in diversity of tools that we provide to the police to counter protests, that replace live bullets but are nevertheless effective?
Should we designate areas of protest away from public property that enable people make their case without inconveniencing and endangering the rest? We wish the team well. If they succeed, it will be our collective gain. If they fail, they will place an enduring nail on the coffin of public mistrust of anything government. That cannot be the way to build a progressive, sustainable nation.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
-The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
By Kamotho Waiganjo