The elections are fast approaching and as has happened in the past, the campaign podiums have often been used to spew hate and inciteful messages. Our writer Walter Menya spoke to National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) Chairman Rev Dr Samuel Kobia about a wide range of issues
How different from the past years is NCIC approaching this year’s General Election to sanitise the campaigns of hate speech and incitement?
The NCIC is adopting a broad-based approach dubbed 'Election Bila Noma'. Within this framework we have held two successful symposia on peace, one with religious leaders and the other with boda boda riders. We intend to have many more as the election approaches.
At the same time, we have three consequences clearly laid out for the period. The first is political: if one is involved in hate speech we will do our hardest to ensure they are not cleared to run for office. Second is social consequence which is embodied in the walls of shame and fame where we have and continue to monitor politicians involved in shameful politics and include them in a permanent wall of shame. This was initially mocked but has proven very effective in deterring hate speech and no one wants to be immortalised in shame and infamy. Third is the criminal consequence where we have improved our forensic, investigative and legal capacity to ensure charges are airtight and will lead to convictions. We have also partnered with the Judiciary to ensure that cases are concluded in time via the special courts they have set up.
From NCIC mapping, what is the outlook for 2022 in terms of security index and cases of incitement to violence and hate speech? How are we compared to a similar period in 2017?
From the Rapid Conflict Assessment carried out in 2019, we noted heightened political tensions emanating from the Building Bridges Initiative which was perceived as pre-positioning for 2022 General Election. Between 2019 -2021, NCIC intervened in major inter-communal conflicts largely caused by political incitement, hate speech and resource sharing. This was the case in Narok, Nandi, Kisumu, Marsabit, Meru, Tharaka-Nithi, Taita-Taveta and Kwale counties.
Increased cases of hate speech and incitement to violence continued until August 20, 2021, when the Court of Appeal ruled against the BBI. The ruling changed the political dynamics leading to new political alignments and formations. In 2017, the major political contest was between National Super Alliance (Nasa) and Jubilee Party. Currently, there are new coalitions emerging such as Azimio la Umoja, United Democratic Alliance (UDA), and One Kenya Alliance (OKA). More alliances are emerging as we move closer to the 2022 General Election. We are closely monitoring these political movements and also monitoring the narratives employed to ensure the politics does not affect the peace of our country in any negative way.
Several months after the National Cohesion and Peace Building Bill, 2021 was published, it has yet to even pass one of the Houses of Parliament. Do you, as NCIC, have concerns over the delay in passing this Bill?
Of course, as an institution we hope that the Bill passes sooner to allow us to better tackle the looming challenge. At the same time, we have had encouraging consultations with the Speakers of the two Houses and reached understanding on how to expedite the passing of the Bill. However, we are determined to still deliver on our mandate with or without the Bill. That is our driving mantra.
How significant would it be to have the National Cohesion and Peace Building Bill, 2021 passed into law, especially with the elections in sight?
It will help us deal with cases of hate speech better and help us in creating real political consequences for the political class in allowing NCIC to bar them from elections. Further, we will also be able to investigate and refer cases directly to the ODPP which will further strengthen the NCIC. The NCIC being given the power to prosecute would also mean that criminals will face justice faster and will only find reprieve on appeal.
In your view, what makes hate speech difficult to prosecute? What are some of the inherent weaknesses of NCIC to deal with hate speech?
This is a good question. Hate speech is not difficult to prosecute. In fact, we have 12 cases already in the courts and we have two convictions (by Kathini and Machakos law courts). The other problem isn’t that there are no prosecutions, it is that the cases take long, and the media doesn’t bother to confirm facts before labeling the commission.
As regards the delay in conclusion of the matters that get to court, we trust it is going to be a matter of the past. We take comfort in Her Ladyship the Chief Justice’s assurance that soon the Judiciary will establish four specialised courts to deal with hate speech and related cases.
Your critics have also raised concerns regarding NCIC’s unusual closeness to the Office of the President, especially the Ministry of Interior. In this case, your critics say that NCIC has lost its independence and is no more than a mouthpiece for the ministry which determines cases it takes up. What is your response to this?
First our commission and indeed every commission has a line ministry through which it relates to the Executive. It is therefore not unusual for our commission to work through the ministry. Secondly the NCIC is supposed to work with the police and administration in its duties of peace building. If someone is to be arrested for hate speech, who arrests him? It is not the NCIC but rather the police who are tasked with all arrests in Kenya. Therefore, our interactions with the ministry are both normal and critical in handling hate speech and peace building.
In dealing with hate speech, one of the biggest challenges is with social media. While mainstream media moderate political rallies, politicians with ulterior motives broadcast their hate speeches live on social media to millions of their supporters. What practical measures is the NCIC proposing or implementing to rein in on hate speech and incitement passed on through social media?
We have created and strengthened our online investigation evidence gathering and tracking system. We are now able to find out who is spewing hate speech whether anonymously or not. In fact, as we speak, we are soon presenting five cases to court for prosecution. The NCIC has become more effective because of synergies within the re-activated Multi-Agency Platform. It includes working with the Communications Authority of Kenya which has technologically advanced gadgets to aid us in our work.
Your Commission has talked about introducing a ‘wall of shame’ for politicians who breach codes of conduct governing elections and political parties. What is the progress on this? How can the public access such information on the politicians accused of hate speech?
We have a process to bring someone to the wall of shame. First, we put you on a list of shame which allows you only three offenses before we put you on the wall of shame for good. What is interesting is since we did the first list no other politician has dared commit these crimes until the recent regrettable statements from Senator [Cleophas] Malala. The first people on the list signed a pledge to political decency and we have not seen them utter hate speech again. The wall of shame has proven a very effective tool and we can see that in the ODM Secretary-General Edwin Sifuna and others. Mr Sifuna in fact volunteered to do 50 hours of community work so as not to appear on the list of shame and has since not been involved in hate speech.
At the moment, how many cases related to hate speech and incitement is NCIC handling?
Currently, we have 33 cases under investigations whose details cannot be disclosed at this juncture. Twelve cases are pending before courts of law, and another five matters have been referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for action.
Some politicians, in particular those allied to Deputy President William Ruto, have accused NCIC of being used by powerful individuals in government to settle political scores. For them, the summons the NCIC have issued especially after the Matungu, Kabuchai and London ward by-elections only targeted leaders ascribing to the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) and not others in rival political camps. Do these accusations have any merit?
Certainly no! Let’s not bring propaganda to the work of peace building. Section 26 2 (a) of the NCI Act provides that “in the discharge of its functions under the Act it shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority” and I assure you that the decisions of the commission are not influenced by any external forces. Therefore, the accusation regarding the summons issued to persons of concern during the Matungu, Kabuchai and London ward by-elections is purely one of perception and a product of lack of information. If one were to review the list of the persons summoned by the commission it will clearly emerge that some of the persons in the list are not from a single political divide as suggested by your question. For instance, Hon Charles Were, the MP for Kasipul, and Hon Chris Wamalwa, the MP for Kimilili, are not from UDA or known DP supporters for that matter. Beyond these, we also have among those summoned and whose cases have been processed two governors, two senators and a number of MPs elected on ODM tickets and other MPs from ANC, Kanu and Ford-Kenya. We would like to politely ask politicians not to involve the NCIC in partisan political propaganda.
How is NCIC shielding itself from being dragged into political fights, especially now with the elections approaching?
There is only one way for a referee to be seen as unbiased and this is by being fair, firm and just. The NCIC has no side other than the side of truth and justice. It is this principle that guides us fully.
