Kenya’s legal colonial paradox

In 2007-08 Kenya experienced bloody post-electoral violence that claimed more than 1,300 lives and displaced 600,000 people. The conflict pit against each others the partisans of political formations, including the Kenya African Union (KANU) led by Uhuru Kenyatta, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) of Raila Odinga, etc.

President Uhuru Kenyatta
President Uhuru Kenyatta

In the aftermath of the tragedy, the International Criminal Court indicted the winner of the presidential election, Mr. Kenyatta. The charges alleged “crimes against humanity, including murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, rape, persecution and other inhumane acts.” However, faced with the Kenyan authorities refusal to turn over “evidence vital to the case,” the chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, asked the Court to withdraw the case in 2013.  Regardless, Mr. Kenyatta has ever since been resentful about his indictment. As a result, he has spent a great deal of energy, state resources and political pressure to weaken the ICC. First, he ended Kenya’s membership in the court. Then, he lobbied heavily among heads of state and at the African Union’s meetings for a global continental departure from the ICC. It appears though that his efforts were in vain. In an editorial piece, titled “In Africa, Seeking a License to Kill,” Rev. Desmond Tutu rebuked and condemned Mr. Kenyatta’s maneuver.
Low and behold, it turns out that today colonial era laws still deny Kenyan citizens some of their fundamental rights. Such are the facts laid out in Mercy Muendo‘s, article below, titled “Kenyans are still oppressed by archaic colonial laws.”
Upon reading the article, I am more than ever convinced that, instead of waging a loosing anti-ICC crusade —it got even lonelier following The Gambia’s recent return to the court —, Mr. Kenyatta ought to clean up his own yard, first.

Tierno S. Bah

Kenyans are still oppressed by archaic colonial laws

It’s been 54 years since Kenya got her independence and yet there are still a number of archaic, colonial and discriminatory laws on the statute books. From archival research I have done it’s clear that these laws are used to exploit, frustrate and intimidate Kenyans by restricting their right to movement, association and the use of private property.

They also make it difficult for ordinary Kenyans to make a living by imposing steep permit fees on informal businesses.

These laws were inherited from the colonial British government and used to be within the purview of local government municipalities under the Local Government Act. This act was repealed when municipalities were replaced by counties after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.

Currently, these laws are contained in county rules and regulations, criminalizing a good number of activities, including making any kind of noise on the streets, committing acts contrary to public decency, washing, repairing or dismantling any vehicle in non-designated areas (unless in an emergency) and loitering aimlessly at night.

The colonial laws served a central purpose – segregation. Africans and Asians could be prosecuted for doing anything that the white settlers deemed to be a breach of public order, public health or security.

Violating human rights

Many of these archaic laws also restrict citizens’ use of shared or public space. Some of them grant the police powers to arrest offenders without warrant, and to prosecute them under the Penal Code.

Offences like the ones mentioned above are classified as petty crimes that can attract fines and prison terms.

Some have argued that these laws are being abused because they restrict freedom of movement and the right to a fair hearing.

A few of them also hinder the growth of the economy. For example, hawking without a permit is against the law. To get a permit, traders must pay steep fees to various government authorities. This requirement is a deterrent to trade and infringes on the social economic rights of citizens.

Another example is the law that makes it a crime to loiter at night. This law was initially put on the books to deter people from soliciting for sexual favours, or visiting unlicensed establishments. It has however become a means for state agents to harass anyone walking on the streets at night.

Genesis of archaic laws

The laws can be traced back to legal ordinances that were passed by the colonial government between 1923 and 1934.

The 1925 Vagrancy (Amendment) Ordinance restricted movement of Africans after 6pm, especially if they did not have a registered address.

Post-independence, the ordinance became the Vagrancy Act, which was repealed in 1997. The Vagrancy Act inspired the Public Order Act, which restricts movement of Africans during the day, but only in the special circumstances that are outlined in the Public Security (Control of Movement) Regulations.

This legislation is similar to the Sundown Town rules under the Jim Crow discrimination law in the United States. A California-posted sign in the 1930s said it all: “Nigger, Don’t Let The Sun Set On YOU In Hawthorne.” — T.S. Bah

The Witchcraft Ordinance of 1925, which formed the basis for the Witchcraft Act, outlawed any practices that were deemed uncivilised by colonial standards. The provisions of the Act are ambiguous and a clear definition of witchcraft is not given. This has made it easy for authorities to prosecute a wide range of cultural practices under the banner of witchcraft.

Rationale behind punitive laws

The idea behind most of the targeted legislation enacted by the colonialists was to separate whites from people of other races, including Asians. For example, in 1929 settlers in the white suburbs of Muthaiga in Nairobi raised an objection when the Governor announced plans to merge their suburban township with greater Nairobi.

That would have meant that they would have had to mingle with locals from Eastleigh and other native townships, which were mostly black. As a caveat to joining the greater Nairobi Township, the Muthaiga Township committee developed standard rules and regulations to govern small townships.

These rules and regulations were applied to other administrative townships such as Mombasa and Eldoret.

White townships would only join larger municipalities if the Muthaiga rules applied across the board.

The Muthaiga rules allowed white townships to control and police public space, which was a clever way to restrict the presence and movement of Asians and Africans in the suburbs.

Variations of these rules remain on the books to date. The current Nairobi county rules and regulations require residents to pay different rates to the county administration depending on their location.

In addition, the county rules demand that dog owners must be licensed, a requirement that limits the number of city dwellers who can own dogs. This rule can be read as discriminatory because the vast majority of lower-income earners now find themselves unable to keep a dog in the city. Indeed, discrimination was the basis of the colonial legal framework.

Can oppressive laws be legal?

Strictly speaking, these discriminatory rules and regulations were unlawful because they were not grounded in statutory or common law. Indeed, they were quasi-criminal and would have been unacceptable in Great Britain.

Ironically, because such rules and regulations didn’t exist in Great Britain, criminal charges could not be brought against white settlers for enforcing them.

To curtail freedom of movement and enjoyment of public space by non-whites the settlers created categories of persons known as “vagrants”, “vagabonds”, “barbarians”, “savages” and “Asians”.

These were the persons targeted by the loitering, noisemaking, defilement of public space, defacing of property, and anti-hawking laws. The penalty for these offences was imprisonment.

Anyone found loitering, anyone who was homeless or found in the wrong abode, making noise on the wrong streets, sleeping in public or hawking superstitious material or paraphernalia would be detained after trial.

Police had the powers to arrest and detain offenders in a concentration camp, detention or rehabilitation center, or prison without a warrant.

This is the same legal framework that was inherited by the independence government and the very same one that has been passed down to the county governments.

The Public Order Act allows police powers to arrest without warrant anyone found in a public gathering, meeting or procession which is likely to breach the peace or cause public disorder. This is the current position under sections 5 and 8 of the Act.

This law, which was used by the colonial government to deter or disband uprisings or rebellions, has been regularly abused in independent Kenya.

At the end of the day Kenyans must ask themselves why successive governments have allowed the oppression of citizens to continue by allowing colonial laws to remain on the books.

The Conversation

La Cour suprême rejette l’appel d’El-Béchir

Contrairement aux démarches de Uhuru Kenyatta, président du Kenya, appuyé par certains de ses pairs de l’Union africaine, la Cour suprême d’Afrique du Sud vient de confirmer la validité des plaintes déposées et, surtout, la légalité des procédures engagées contre Omar El-Béchir, président du Soudan.
Tierno S. Bah

La Cour suprême d’Afrique du Sud rejette la demande d’appel du gouvernement sud-africain en faveur d’Omar El-Béchir, président du Soudan.

Le président du Soudan Omar Hassan El Béchir prend part aux travaux du 20è sommet la Ligue Arabe réuni à Damas ( Syrie), en Mars 2008. (Photo by Ammar Abd Rabbo)
Le président du Soudan Omar Hassan El Béchir prend part aux travaux du 20è sommet la Ligue Arabe réuni à Damas ( Syrie), en Mars 2008. (Photo by Ammar Abd Rabbo)

La Cour suprême d’appel considère illégale la décision du gouvernement sud-africain de ne pas avoir arrêté le président soudanais en juin dernier, dans un jugement rendu ce mardi, confortant les décisions antérieures de la justice sud-africaine dans cette polémique.

« La décision du gouvernement sud-africain de ne pas arrêter Omar Al-Bashir n’était pas compatible avec la loi sud-africaine. Pour cette raison, la demande a été rejetée », a déclaré la juge Carole Lewis, citée par le Mail and Guardian, le 15 mars 2015.

« L’immunité, quelle qu’elle soit, y compris l’immunité de chef d’État, ne s’oppose pas à la poursuite de crimes internationaux », explique la Cour suprême dans ses conclusions.

Les juges ne mâchent pas leurs mots, considérant comme « risible » l’explication apportée par le ministère de l’Intérieur, pour justifier le départ du président soudanais depuis une base militaire aérienne.

Inculpé de crimes contre l’humanité, crime de guerre et génocide dans le conflit au Darfour par la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), et sous le coup d’un mandat d’arrêt depuis 2009, le président soudanais était venu participer au 25e sommet de l’Union Africaine (UA) à Johannesburg au mois de juin dernier.

La Haute Cour de Pretoria avait alors interdit au président soudanais, de quitter le territoire sud-africain, dans l’attente d’un jugement définitif concernant l’étude de la demande d’arrestation émise par la CPI.

Le gouvernement sud-africain n’en avait pas tenu compte, faisant appel du jugement. La demande du gouvernement sud-africain avait été rejetée par la Haute Cour de Pretoria car celle-ci n’avait « pas de chance d’aboutir » avait indiqué le tribunal, conduisant le gouvernement sud-africain à saisir la Cour suprême d’appel.

De nouvelles poursuites ne sont pas exclues

Par voie de communiqué, la Democratic Alliance (DA), principal parti d’opposition, s’est dit « satisfaite » de cette décision. « Au lieu de défendre l’État de droit, [Jacob Zuma] a décidé de le traiter avec le maximum de mépris et de dédain », ajoute le texte, qui évoque d’éventuelles poursuites contre le président sud-africain.

Selon la presse sud-africaine, le gouvernement sud-africain n’a pas non plus écarté la possibilité d’entreprendre une action devant la Cour constitutionnelle, de son côté l’African national congress (ANC, parti au pouvoir) n’a pas souhaité réagir dans l’immédiat.

Natacha Gorwitz
Jeune Afrique

En septembre 2015,  la Cour pénale internationale avait demandé à l’Afrique du Sud d’expliquer pourquoi elle n’avait pas fait arrêter Omar el-Béchir, poursuivi pour génocide et crimes de guerre, à l’occasion du sommet de l’Union africaine, à la mi-juin.

L’Afrique du Sud devait remettre aux juges de la CPI, au plus tard le 5 octobre, « ses vues sur les événements entourant la présence d’Omar el-Béchir au sommet de l’Union africaine à Johannesburg les 13, 14 et 15 juin 2015 » , ont indiqué les juges dans un document, lundi 7 septembre, qui ajoute que le gouvernement de Jacob Zuma doit en particulier expliquer « sa défaillance à arrêter Omar el-Béchir et à le remettre à la Cour ».

Poursuivi par la CPI pour génocide, crimes contre l’humanité et crimes de guerre au Darfour, Omar el-Béchir s’était rendu mi-juin au sommet de l’Union Africaine à Johannesburg. Malgré une interdiction de quitter le territoire prononcée par un juge sud-africain, il avait décollé quelques jours plus tard depuis une base militaire, sans être inquiété.

Sous mandat d’arrêt depuis 2009

Selon les juges de la CPI, en tant qu’Etat partie, l’Afrique du Sud était dans l’obligation d’arrêter le président Béchir, sous le coup d’un mandat d’arrêt depuis 2009. « Quand un pays ne coopère pas avec la Cour, celle-ci peut en référer au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU », ont-ils rappelé.

Au pouvoir depuis 1989, Omar el-Béchir, malgré des déplacements réduits, continue à se rendre à l’étranger sans être inquiété, parfois dans des pays membres de la CPI, qui ne dispose pas de sa propre force de police et doit s’en remettre à la coopération des Etats.

Jeune Afrique