Uhuru hits back at the US over criticism

Saturday, December 20, 2014

By NATION TEAM
More by this Author

In Summary

• A terse statement from the US State Department had on Friday criticised the controversial new security laws, saying they undermined human rights, democracy and Kenya’s international obligations.
• But the statement from President Kenyatta, which was signed by State House official Munyori Buku, asked the US Government to take time and understand the laws before criticising the Kenya Government.
• In a joint statement issued in Nairobi, the envoys from the US, Britain, Canada, Sweden, France, Denmark, Netherlands and Australia called on MPs to take their time and carefully review the Bill and consult broadly to build consensus.

President Uhuru Kenyatta on Saturday reacted strongly to a statement by the US Government criticising the passage of the controversial security law which he signed on Friday.

The law becomes effective starting Monday when it is expected to be published.

At the same time, Cord leader Raila Odinga said the Opposition would call for mass protests if the courts did not stop the new laws (see separate story).

In a move that is likely to test the fragile relations between Nairobi and the Barack Obama administration, the President said that criticising the new law was a “clear indication that the US had decided to go with the view of the noisemakers rather than the Security (Amendment Act) itself”.

“First, our law is better than the American Patriot and Homeland Security Acts that give rogue powers to security agencies. In the US, FBI and intelligence officers have a carte blanche in the fight against terrorism and biological warfare.

But our law has provided checks by courts of law. What is more, Kenya has no Guantanamo Bay,” said Mr Kenyatta in a statement from State House.

SECURITY LAWS CRITICISED

A terse statement from the US State Department had on Friday criticised the controversial new security laws, saying they undermined human rights, democracy and Kenya’s international obligations.

“We are disappointed, however, by the very limited time allowed for debate and consultation on the security Bill prior to its passage and enactment into law.

We are also concerned about several provisions in the legislation, including those that appear to limit freedom of assembly and media, and access to asylum for refugees,” said the statement signed by Jen Psaki, the spokesperson for the US State Department.

The statement also took issue with the recent deregistration of 525 non- governmental organisations for their suspected links to terrorism, and demanded answers from the Kenya Government on the criteria used to kick them out.

The US added that whereas it supported Kenya’s efforts to fight terrorism, it expected the government to ensure that any measures to deal with the threat “live up to Kenya’s international commitments and its own constitution”.

“Protecting Kenya’s constitution and upholding human rights, democracy, and international obligations are among the most effective ways to bolster security,” the statement said.

UNDERSTAND LAWS FIRST
But the statement from President Kenyatta, which was signed by State House official Munyori Buku, asked the US Government to take time and understand the laws before criticising the Kenya Government.

“Our law doesn’t curtail the freedom of assembly and the State Department should read the law as passed, and not go by what its associates want them to believe,” said the statement.

The statement also defended the government’s move to deregister hundreds of non- governmental organisations, saying the decision was final.

“The statement questions a decision by a government department that deregistered rogue non- governmental organisations and put on notice  those that flout the law. non- governmental organisations aren’t above the law and they must answer to the authorities.

Isn’t it peculiar that a foreign government appears sympathetic to  organisations that think the law is an irritating irrelevance?”

The US stance appeared to capture the mood of the West towards the passing of the security laws in an acrimonious session characterised by fistfights, heckling and name-calling on Thursday.

BROADER CONSULTATIONS

Prior to the debate, nine Western envoys had called for broader consultations and consensus building before the Bill could be debated.

In a joint statement issued in Nairobi, the envoys from the US, Britain, Canada, Sweden, France, Denmark, Netherlands and Australia called on MPs to take their time and carefully review the Bill and consult broadly to build consensus.

They noted that protecting Kenya’s constitution and upholding civil liberties and democracy were the most effective ways of bolstering security. “It is important that the legislation, while strengthening security, respects human rights and international obligations,” they said.

On the de-registration of non- governmental organisations, the US Government stated that a strong civil society was vital to democracy, security and prosperity.

“We urge the Government of Kenya to ensure the regulation of NGOs is transparent, fair, and grounded in clear criteria that do not limit free expression, association, or assembly,” said the State Department.

Information and Communication Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i said the US Government statement does not address any substance of the law.

“It simply parrots and adds to the yet-to-be-substantiated chorus of Kenya’s political opposition establishment about the illegality and/or unconstitutionality of the law in point.

Without any credible reference to the substance of the law in reference, it is clear the speculative and general statement was issued before reading the (new laws).”

BILL OF RIGHTS
He criticised the Obama Administration for the “patronising and prefectorial” tone of the statement.

“One wonders on what basis the US Government is ‘seeking further information on the December 16 announcement by the Kenya NGO Board’.

The Kenya Government neither reports to the US Government nor manages the affairs of the country under the patronage of our development partners,” Dr Matiang’i said.

The Kenya Government, the minister said, was committed to protecting all citizens under the Bill of Rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

“Freedom of the press is our chosen way of life in Kenya. Nothing will take it away or interfere with it. Demanding professional responsibility on the part of media practitioners is what all Kenyans expect their democratically elected government to do.”

The government statement came as the government defended itself against criticism from the opposition that some critical procedures were flouted in the passage of the Bill.

Giving a chronology of events that preceded the embarrassing scenes that dominated the debate on the controversial laws, National Assembly Majority Leader Aden Duale claimed that MPs from both sides of the political divide had met and agreed on amendments to the contentious clauses in the Bill prior to the debate.

BUILDING CONSENSUS

“Members from both sides of the coalitions participated in harmonisation and clean-up of the Bill to ensure the provisions passed by the National Assembly do not in any way infringe on the Bill of Rights,” said Mr Duale.

He said that 22 MPs (11 from the opposition Cord) met the National Security Committee on Tuesday evening to agree on amendments to the Bill.

“It was collectively agreed that in areas where there was no consensus, each of the members concerned would move their amendments on the floor of the House,” Mr Duale said at a press conference on Friday.

He noted that three House committees took time to build consensus on the Bill by accommodating views from more than 34 groups and individuals.

Stories by Peter Leftie, BMJ Mureithi, Dennis Odunga, Stephen Muthini and Kennedy Kimanthi