Chief of Defence Forces General Charles Kahariri and Director-General of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) Noordin Haji.
National Intelligence Service Director-General Nordin Haji’s decision to give a public lecture at the National Intelligence Research Institute last week is commendable for attempting to strike the much-needed balance between secrecy and accountability in the spy agency.
Although politicians were not invited, the media, civil society and constitutional law experts were in full attendance. Notably, only 48 of the 70 students from institutions of higher learning who were expected were cleared to attend. The Kenya Human Rights Commission sent a ranking member of its board and deputed two Public Action Fellows—survivors of last year’s abductions.
The spy chief spoke at length about the internal and external security risks the intelligence service grapples with on a day-to-day basis—from the porous borders with Somalia and South Sudan, to terrorism and the threat of corruption to national security, to food security and the dangers posed by the information highway.
His dalliance with transparency is impelled by questions Kenyans have continued to ask about the alleged involvement of the agency in the spate of abductions that have trailed online activists challenging government insularity to public interest since the failed attempt to ram through the Finance Bill, 2024.
Haji’s charm offensive would probably have earned some reprieve from the rising public opprobrium towards security agencies if the Chief of Defence Forces, General Charles Kahariri, had not poked the elephant in the room.
Shape public perception
Security agencies, especially so militaries and intelligence services, routinely employ rhetoric to shape public perception about their actions, to justify such actions, and to maintain morale, inspire their comrades and to win the battle for minds. Such rhetoric typically appeals to emotion, and deploys uniformed authority and storytelling to shape public attitudes towards the conduct of security officials.
Gen Kahariri correctly observed that the military—and by extension the security services—are apolitical. His denigration of the #RutoMustGo slogan as extra-constitutional was, however, a hypocritical political statement disguised as a professional opinion. It cannot carry any more weight than that of an ignorant man on the street—the only difference being that the man on the street is innocent.
Gen Kahariri’s insistence that the #RutoMustGo slogan is outside the constitutional framework is mischievous and borrows from a similar duplicitous script authored by then Chief of Defence Forces Samson Mwathethe at the height of the putative 2017 presidential election and its subsequent repeat that politicians’ claims of poll rigging would be dealt with as a security threat. This threat breached the vaunted neutrality of the military, just as Gen Kahariri’s claim that demanding that #RutoMustGo outside the elections framework seeks to justify the very thing the intelligence service sought to flee from with his public lecture.
It is this flawed logic that conflates elections with legitimacy, individuals with offices and people with security threats that presents the greatest risk to Kenya’s democracy. The moment military and security officials leverage their positions and authority to influence and sway public opinion, they have entered The Mud of Politics, to quote former Governor Kiraitu Murungi’s book.
Early this month, the High Court heard highlights of arguments in a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that the President had violated the Constitution more than 31 times, and that there was therefore need for a referendum to end his term of office as part of the direct exercise of the people’s sovereign power. The judge has acknowledged that the questions in the petition are weighty, and he is set to decide whether or not the matter should be referred to the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of judges to hear it.
Transitional government
Were that endeavour to succeed, the petitioners are mulling whether or not to include in the referendum question the option of forming a transitional government that would run the country until the next elections. A professional and politically neutral security service would dodge this bullet by eschewing any discussion of it until it is resolved by the organs mandated to interpret the Constitution.
Philosophy 101 cautions against the fallacy of argumentum ad passions—the use of sometimes legitimate emotional appeals rather than logic or evidence to make a case. Although security officials enjoy the same freedom of opinion and expression as everybody else, Kenyans should be cautious about soldiers and securocrats expressing opinions that denigrate the feelings of the public —whom they serve—and have the potential to ridicule or embarrass the courts. Gen Kahariri and the services he leads have a special responsibility to demonstrate their impartiality through actions and words.
Citizens chanting #RutoMustGo are doing politics. The military and the other security agencies can choose to be neutral in that conversation, or become political advisors of those who appoint them and pay them.
The writer is a board member of KHRC and writes in his individual capacity. @kwamchetsi. kwamchetsi@email.com
