The
commander in chief of the defence forces of the republic of Kenya made a decision to deploy military forces to respond to the killing
of more than 40 police officers and civilians in Suguta Valley. However, this
move has attracted sharp criticism from academics and lawmakers alike in what
is seen as a serious breach of the statutory provisions of the law that creates
the Kenya Defence Forces. Many questions arise as to the constitutionality of
the deployment and whether the country’s internal security apparatus had
failed to contain the situation to warrant the intervention of the highest
security body on the land. The conflict between the local communities over
livestock, pasture for their animals does not meet the threshold of involving the
military personnel. Germany's highest court made a
landmark ruling permitting armed soldiers to be deployed in the country but
stated that the particular threat would have to be of 'catastrophic
proportions' in order to get troops from their barracks and on to the streets
with their weapons primed. It is also important to urge caution in the
use of the Kenya Defence Forces after the negative publicity that emerged from
its sojourn in Mt Elgon not so many years ago where the military used excessive
force and many non-combatants suffered torture at its hands. The military must
be left to deal with the external threats to the country unless there is a
total breakdown of civil order. The present situation, chaotic as it looks,
does not merit military intervention. It calls for better equipment and
intelligence by the police. It will set a dangerous precedent to begin
deploying the military against its citizens regardless of how worrying or
deadly their conflict seems without first exploring why the Police have failed. There can be no excuse for Kenyans killing each other
and it is squarely the responsibility of the government to remove the threats
to peace. But deploying the military is unprecedented and unmerited in the
Baragoi case. President Kibaki should have instead deployed the Anti-Stock
Theft Unit, Rapid Response Squad or the General Service Unit officers to deal
with cattle rustlers. The Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe said armed soldiers
could only be turned out in 'exceptional cases to prevent threats to the state'
and never against demonstrators. The Constitutional Court of Germany added a
rider that the deployment of the armed services - air, sea and land - could
only come from parliament and could not be delegated under any circumstances to
a single minister or ministry, particularly defence. The military’s role was to
primarily defend Kenya’s borders from external aggression as opposed to
fighting internal conflicts.
The decision of
the head of state and the National Security Council does not in any way reflect
the statutory requirements of the statutes that relate to the duty of the Kenya
Defence Forces.
The Kenya Defence Forces
241. (1) There are established the Kenya Defence Forces.
(2) The Defence
Forces consist of—
(a) the Kenya Army;
(b) the Kenya Air Force; and
(c) the Kenya Navy.
(3) The Defence
Forces—
(a)
are responsible for the defence and protection of the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Republic;
(b) shall assist and cooperate with
other authorities in situations of emergency or disaster, and report to the
National Assembly
whenever
deployed in such circumstances; and
(c) may be deployed to restore peace
in any part of Kenya affected by unrest or instability only with the approval
of the National Assembly.
Kenya Defence Forces Act 2012
"enemy"
means—
(a)
any person or country committing external aggression against Kenya;
(b)
any person belonging to a country committing such aggression;
(c)
such other country as may be declared by the Cabinet Secretary, to be assisting
the country committing such aggression;
(d)
any person belonging to the country referred to under paragraph (iii);
Residents of Samburu and
Turkana counties of Kenya do not fall under the realm of the “enemy” as defined
in the Kenya Defence Forces Act 2012. Neither is the Kenya Defence Forces
mandated to pursue cattle rustlers nor involve in disarmament operations.
My brother pliz look at the substance rather than the form...as you always put it you dont close one eye and open the other. the state of insecurity is at best pathetic in Suguta..that fifty officers were murdered is sufficient to tell you what is happening is catastrophic and as you clearly put it in you argument, the police are ill equipped right from the top...so to revert back to my argument..for expediencies sake, let the military take charge immediately..what you advocating for is a general principle which applies with a progressive system in place.
ReplyDeleteRIGHT OF REPLY.my gud frnd jasper,the gist of my argument is, was parliament involved in the deployment as required by art 241 (d) of the constitution we vehemently campaigned and voted for?
ReplyDeleteThank you very much
ReplyDelete