Counter-terrorism laws in Kenya: Humanitarian action and criminalizing “radicalization”

Just like many other countries in Africa that have embarked on a path to legislate and develop policies in response to increased cases and threats of different forms of terrorism, Kenya’s push for and eventual passage of the Security Laws Amendment Bill of 2014 has challenged the moral standing of this country in upholding international human rights standards.

One particularly problematic part of this new law in Kenya is embedded in Section 73, which introduces the concept of “radicalization.” The law criminalizes “any person who adopts or promotes an extreme belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change.” Among the problems with this piece of legislation is that, whereas the legislators made a spurious attempt to define “extreme belief system,” the law leaves us with just a loose concept without conceptual grounding. The ill-defined concept makes the reach of the law overly broad, and this becomes additionally problematic considering that those found guilty are sentenced to 30 years in prison!

There are numerous schools of thought pointing toward state weakness and fragility being the leading causes of radicalization – particularly in Africa. It is, therefore, perhaps not surprising that 12 of the 20 states deemed by the Failed States Index (FSI) to be at greatest risk of collapse are in Africa. These fragile and failed states account for much of the continent’s ongoing conflict, instability, and humanitarian catastrophes. State fail­ure raises the level of personal insecurity and lawlessness, and increases the risk of armed conflict. Such persistent insecurity undermines all the fundamental aspects of ordinary life, forc­ing people to abandon their morality, social norms, and daily engagements for fear of violence, arrest, or attack. Under such circumstances, individuals become willing to support or accept virtu­ally any group that is able to restore order—be they warlords, religious groupings, local gangs, or organized criminal syndicates. This is how “radicalization” often occurs and deepens. African states pursuing new counter-terrorism measures cannot imagine that they will be successful by attempting to cut off the supply of ideas and the freedom of speech that individuals and groups are entitled to.

Humanitarian actors are likely to be negatively affected by these new laws in Kenya, and by similar ones already in place or under discussion in other states in Africa. How will they be able to continue offering humanitarian assistance and protection to individuals who find themselves on the wrong side of such seemingly arbitrary laws? How should humanitarian agencies be guided by international laws and standards reconcile the need to respect states’ legitimate wish to fight terror groups, while remaining firm in standing up for the rights of the individual in times of crises?

About the author
Francis Onditi is an International Peace Support Operation Expert & Humanitarian Analyst